CIHM 
Microfiche 
Series 
(Monographs) 


ICIMH 

Collection  de 
microfiches 
(monographies) 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  canadSen  de  microreproductions  historlques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes  /  Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best  original 
copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this  copy  which 
may  be  bibliographically  unique,  which  may  alter  any  of 
the  images  in  the  reproduction,  or  which  may 
significantly  change  the  usual  method  of  filming  are 
checked  below. 


[;;"]   Coloured  covers  / 


D 
D 


D 
D 
D 
D 
D 


D 


D 


Couverture  de  couleur 

Covers  damaged  / 
Couverture  endommag^e 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Couverture  restaur^e  et/ou  pellicula 

Cover  title  missing  /  Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps  /  Cartes  g^ographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)  / 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations  / 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material  / 
Reli^  avec  d'autres  documents 

Only  edition  available  / 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion  along 
interior  margin  /  La  reliure  serr^e  peut  causer  de 
I'ombre  ou  de  la  distorsion  le  long  de  la  marge 
int§rieure. 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restorations  may  appear 
within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these  have  been 
omitted  from  filming  /  II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages 
blanches  ajout^es  lors  d'une  restauration 
apparaissent  dans  le  texte,  mais,  lorsque  cela  6talt 
possible,  ces  pages  n'ont  pas  iM  film^es. 

Additional  comments  / 
Commentaires  suppl^mentaires: 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire  qu'il  lui  a 
6X6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details  de  cet  exem- 
plaire qui  sont  peut-6tre  uniques  du  point  de  vue  bibli- 
ographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier  une  image  reproduite, 
ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une  modification  dans  la  m^tho- 
de  normale  de  filmage  sont  indiqu^s  ci-dessous. 

I     I  Coloured  pages  /  Pages  de  couleur 

I I   Pages  damaged  /  Pages  endommag^es 


D 


D 
D 


D 


Pages  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Pages  restaur^s  et/ou  pellicul^es 


rr~j  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed  / 

L-^  J  Pages  dteolordes,  tachet^es  ou  piques 

I      I  Pages  detached  /  Pages  d6tach6es 

I  \[  Showthrough / Transparence 

I      I  Quality  of  print  varies  / 


Quality  in^gale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material  / 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^nnontaire 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  en-ata  slips, 
tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  totalement  ou 
partiellemeni  obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une 
pelure,  etc.,  ont  616  filmdes  k  nouveau  de  fa^on  k 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 

Opposing  pages  with  varying  colouration  or 
discolourations  are  filmed  twice  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  s'opposant  ayant  des 
colorations  variables  ou  des  decolorations  sont 
film^es  deux  fois  afin  d'obtenir  la  meilleure  image 
possible. 


This  Hem  It  f  ilmad  at  the  reduction  ratio  chackad  below  / 

Ca  document  eat  film*  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqui  ci-daaaoua. 


10x 

14x 

18x 

22x 

26x 

30x 

v' 

1 

12x 

16x 

20x 

24x 

28x 

32x 

The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Dana  Porter  Arti  Library 
University  of  Waterloo 

The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  In  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  prir^ted  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  -^-(meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 

Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc..  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


L'exemplaire  film*  fut  reproduit  grflce  A  la 
gAnirositi  de: 

Dana  Porter  Arts  Library 
University  of  Waterloo 

Les  images  suivantes  ont  «t4  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin.  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
de  la  nettet«  de  l'exemplaire  film*,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprim«a  sont  film«s  en  commen^ant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
derniire  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration.  soit  par  la  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film*s  en  commenpant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  derniire  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaltra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE"  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc..  peuvent  Atre 
filmis  *  des  taux  de  reduction  diff«rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  fttre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clich«,  il  est  film*  *  partir 
de  I'angle  sup*rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  *  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  n*cessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
iltustrent  la  m*thode. 


MiaiOCOrY  RISOIUTION  TEST  CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


1.0 


I.I 


■  2.8 

■  40 


i2.5 

2.0 
1.8 


^  /APPLIED  IIVHGE    I 

^K  1653   East   Main   Street 

S^S  Rochester.   Ne«   York        14609       USA 

^S  (716)  482  -  0300  -  Phone 

^=  (716)   288  -  S989  -  Fa« 


STUDIES    IN 
AMERICAN     HISTORY 


BxAtTMABCBAIB,    AND     THB    WaB     OF 

AifBBiCAN  Indepbndencb.  Two  vol- 
umes.  Illustrated.  By  EliMohftk  S. 
Kilt.    96.00  tut  Tper  let. 

THB  POUTICAI-  HiBTOBT  of  THB  PUB- 

ucLani»,fboii1840to18««.  Fbt-i 
Pbb-emption  to  Hombbtbad.  dff 
Oeorgt  M.  Slepkenton.  SS.60  ntt. 
Gboboia  ab  a  Fbopbibtabt  Pbotincb 
^Thb  ExBctmoM  OF  A  Tbubt.  By 
JavM$  Rom  McCain.  9SJS0  net. 
Lincoln,  tbb  Politician.  By  T. 
Aaron  Levy.    tl.60  net. 

BICBABDa.BAI>GEII,FCBLIBHEB,  BOSTON 


THE  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF 
THE  PUBLIC  LANDS 

FROM  1840  TO  1862 


FROM  PRE-EMPnON   TO  HOMESTEAD 

BY 
GEORGE  M.  STEPHENSON,  Ph.D. 

Indnutor  in  Hidory  in  Dartmouth  CotUgt 


BOSTON:    RICHARD  G.  BADGER 

TOBONTO:  THE  COPP  CLABK  CO.,  UMITED 


Gorman,  1917,  ar  GBoaa  M. 
All  Ri^ta  Bcatrwd 


Made  m  the  Unhed  SUtea  of  Amerin 


Hie  Goriiain  FreM.  Boetoo.  U.  S.  A. 


Gbatbtullt  Dboicatbd 

fO 

Mt  Sx»TBBt  AHD  BBOTHmUi 


PREFACE 


In  the  preparation  of  this  book  the  author  has  attempted 
to  trace  the  history  of  the  public  land  legislation  in  Con- 
gress, to  portray  the  sentiment  of  the  different  sections  of 
the  country  relative  to  the  disposal  of  the  public  domain, 
and  to  estimate  the  influence  of  the  public  lands  on  the  politi- 
cal and  legislative  situation  in  general  in  the  period  from 
1840  to  1862.  The  first  task  was  comparatively  simple,  the 
second  more  difficult,  and  the  last  often  perplexing.  In 
many  instances  the  leaders  and  spokesmen  of  public  opinion 
have  been  allowed  to  state  their  position  in  theii  own  words ; 
and  frequently  where  quotation  marks  will  not  be  found,  the 
actual  expression  of  the  writer  or  speaker  has  been  closely 
followed. 

The  research  was  begun  in  a  seminar  at  Harvard  Univer- 
sity in  1911,  later  expanding  into  a  doctoral  dissertation. 
Those  who  have  profited  by  the  stimulating  scholarship, 
illuminating  criticism,  and  the  never-failing  encouragement 
and  courtesy  of  Professor  Frederick  J.  Turner,  will  under- 
stand the  author's  deep  obligation  to  him.  He  has  blazed 
the  way  for  those  who  seek  to  understand  the  significance  of 
the  West  in  American  History. 

Reference  has  been  made  in  the  Bibliography  to  the  li- 
braries where  the  material  for  this  study  was  found.  The 
author  desires  to  thank  the  officials  for  their  assistance. 

Gkoiox  M.  Stxphxmsov. 
Dartmouth  College, 
August,  1917. 


It 

H 

! 

n 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 

FAOa 

SeCTIONAUBIC  AMD  TBX  PuBUC  Lands,  1885-1845 19 

1.  Key  to  the  political  history  of  the  public  landa 19 

2.  Conditions  in  the  West 20 

a.  The  pioneer  point  of  view 20 

b.  Claim  Associations 21 

S.  Fundamental  difference  in  the  attitude  of  the  old  states  and  the 

new 28 

4.  Pre-emption 28 

a.  The  old  states 24 

(1)  Economic,  social  and  political  considerations  .     .  24 

(2)  The  problem  of  immigration 24 

(8)  Liberal  views 25 

b.  Thebeginninff  of  pre-emption  and  graduation.     ...  25 

(1)  Benton^s  first  bill 20 

(2)  Opposition  from  the  old  states 20 

fi.  Distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands     ...  20 

a.  The  problem  of  the  surplus  revenue 27 

b.  Clay's  report.  1882 27 

c.  Opposition  from  Benton  and  the  Democrats   ....  28 

d.  Suj^ported  by  those  who  favored  a  high  tariff  and  na- 

tional aid  to  internal  improvements 20 

e.  Southern  opposition  —  Calhoun 80 

0.  Cession  of  the  public  lands  to  the  states  in  which  tiiey  were  situ- 
ated        81 

a.  Calhoun's  purpose 81 

(1)  Opposition  to  Clay's  distribution  scheme    ...  81 

(2)  His  desire  for  a  political  alliance  with  the  West  .  82 

b.  Calhoun's  bill.  1887 88 

c.  Sectional  debate 84 

d.  The  sentiment  of  the  country 85 


CHAPTER  n 

The  Influence  of  the  Pcbuc  Lands  in  the  Elbction  or  1840  ...  88 

1.  The  difficulty  of  estimating  the  importance  of  the  public  land 

issue  in  the  campaign 88 

2.  The  Democratic  platform 88 

8.  The  evasive  tactics  of  the  Whigs 88 

4.  Efforts  of  the  Democrats  to  put  the  Whigs  on  record   ....  40 

a.  Bent(»i's  resolutions,  1889-1840 41 

b.  Dissension  in  the  Whig  ranks 41 

5.  The  campaign  <A  1840  a  land-maric  in  the  history  of  the  public 

landa 4t 

9 


10 


Contents 


CHAPTER  in 

PASS 

The  DiaTRiBunoN-PRB-EMPTiON  Act  of  1841 44 

1.  The  effect  of  the  election  on  the  land  question 44 

a.  The  Democratic  interpretation 44 

b.  The  Whig  view 44 

2.  Benton's  "Log  Cabin"  pre-emption  bill.  December,  1840  ...  44 

a.  The  Whig  opposition 45 

b.  Discussion  of  the  land  policy  in  general 45 

8.  The  result  of  the  pre-election  tactics  of  the  Whigs 48 

a.  Cleavage  between  the  Clay  Whigs  and  the  Southern  wing 

of  the  party 40 

b.  The  disharmony  in  the  Whig  coalition  accentuated  by 

the  death  of  President  Harrison 51 

c.  President  Tylei's  record  on  the  land  question  —  his  rela- 

tions with  Clay 51 

4.  Tyler's  message,  June  1,  1841  —  various  interpretations  ...  58 

5.  Clay's  attempted  domination  of  Congress 54 

6.  The  situation  in  Congress 55 

a.  The  Senate  evenly  balanced  on  the  distribution  measure  .  55 

b.  The  strategic  position  of  the  Western  Whigs  who  de- 

manded a  pre-emption  Uw 56 

7.  A  combined  distribution  and  pre-emption  bill  passes  the  House, 

July  6.  1841 57 

a.     Concession  to  the  West  in  the  bill 57 

8.  The  course  of  the  bill  in  the  Senate        58 

a.  The  combined  opposition  of  the  Southern  Whigs  and  the 

Democrats  to  distribution  —  their  motives  analysed  .  58 

b.  The  menace  of  the  executive  veto 60 

c.  The  adoption  of  the  twenty  per  cent  proviso  a  victory 

for  the  South  and  the  Democrats 60 

d.  The  passage  of  the  bill  with  the  aid  of  log  rolling  —  the 

bankrupt  bill 62 

(1)  Analysis  of  the  vote 62 

9.  Provisions  of  the  distribution-pre-emption  law,  Sept.  4, 1841  .     .  64 


I    I 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  SeNTDIENT  of  the  CoUMTBT  on  the  DlSTBIBCnON-PBE-EMFnON 

I4AW 66 

1.  Western  satisfaction 66 

2.  Disappointment  of  Eastern  high  tariff  men 66 

S.  Great  opposition  by  Southern  Democrats 67 

a.     Action  of  state  legUlatures 68 

4.  Demand  of  the  West  for  a  more  liberal  pre-emption  law    ...  71 


CHAPTER  V 


Ttleb's  Tariff  Vetoes  and  the  Public  Lands 7S 

1.  Disorganized  condition  of  the  Whigs 78 

2.  Democratic  efforts  to  repeal  distribution 78 

lu    Clay's  tactics  —  his  reKdutions 74 


Contentt 

VMS 

5.  Tyler's  ipecial  menage  recommenda  nupension  at  diatribution  74 

a.  Intenae  mpoeition  by  protectioniaU 70 

b.  Coune  of  the  Clay  Whiga  in  Gmgreaa 76 

4.  Attempt  of  Clay  Whiga  to  repealthe  20%  proviao 70 

a.  The  "Little  Tariff"  bill 77 

b.  Tyler'a  predicament 80 

c.  Veto  of  the  "Little  Tariff" 80 

d.  The  "Great  Tariff"  biU 8S 

(1)  Tyler'a  veto 8t 

e.  The  afparate  diatribution  bill 84 

(1)  Tyler'a  veto 84 

f .  Conditiona  favorable  to  Tyler 84 

a.  Varioua  party  groupa 84 

b.  Lack  of  narmony  between  Kaatem  and  Weatem  Whiga  .  85 

6.  The  wreck  of  the  Whig  mirty  due  hugely  to  the  aectiooal  ^t 

ova  the  public  land  policy 86 

CHAPTER  VI 

DiBTRIBTTTION  AFTKR  1842 88 

1.  Failure  of  diatribution  cauaea  diaaatiafaction  in  the  debt(»  atatea  .  88 

a.    The  "National  Stock  Proposition" 88 

2.  Diatribution  of  no  importance  in  campaign  of  1844       ....  88 
8.  Revival  of  diatribution  about  18A0  —  eq>ecially  in  the  South  91 

a.    Cauaes 91 

(1)  The  Know-nothing  party  adopta  diatribution  .     .  91 

(2)  The  influence  of  the  homestead  and  land  grant 

policies 91 

(8)  The  anticipated  aurplus 91 

4.  The  diatribution  iaaue  in  aignificant  states 98 

a.  Virginia 98 

b.  Tennessee 93 

c.  North  Carolina 94 

5.  Importance  of  the  atudy  of  the  diatribuUon  measure    .     .     .     .  9A 


CHAPTER  VII 

Ths  BsannnNa  or  trc  National  Hoiostbad  AaiTAnoN 97 

1.  The  pre-emption  Uw  of  1841  not  a  tinal  settlemoit  of  the  land 

question 97 

2.  Dissatisfaction  with  the  pre-empti(m  law  in  the  West  ....  97 

a.  Conflicting  interests 97 

b.  Conditions  in  the  West 98 

(1)  Prevalence  of  fraud  in  the  administration  of  the 

lands 98 

(2)  Speculation !     !     !  99 

(8;  Opposition  to  land  bounties 101 

The  denand  of  laboring  men  in  the  East  for  free  hinds    ...  108 

a.    Causes 108 

il)  Increasing  immobility  of  labor 108 

2)  Increased  immigration 108 

(S)  Development  ofcongested  industrial  centres    .     .  108 

(4)  Influence  of  industrial  dq;>ressioaB 104 


12  Contenfi 

b.  f&K  of  organiied  labor  in  the  decade  of  the  twenties  104 

c.  The  work  of  George  Henry  Evans  —  his  theory   .     .     .  10« 

d.  llie  National  Reform  Association 107 

(1)  Principles  and  methods lOT 

e.  Importance  of  the  labor  influence HO 

4.  The  work  and  influence  of  Horace  Greeley  and  The  New  York 

Tribune IH 

5.  The  importance  of  the  Germans US 

CHAPTER  Vra 

Thx  Bxoinmimgb  or  Nationai^  Homkstkad  Leodlation     ....  114 

1.  President  Jackson's  message.  1832 H^ 

2.  The  Florida  Occupation  bill,  1842 HA 

8.  The  Oregon  bills,  1842,  etc 11» 

4.  The  first  homestead  resoluticm,  Jan.  4, 1844 118 

5.  The  first  homestead  petition,  Jan.  S,  1845 118 

8.  The  first  homestead  bill,  Feb.  4. 1845 118 

7.  Homestead  bills  introduced  by  McConnell  and  Andrew  Johnson. 

1848 "• 

CHAPTER  IX 

Homestead  and  otheb  Land  MEASimEn:    Boxmnsa,    Gramtb  to 

Railways,  and  Graduation 118 

1.  Hie  increase  in  number  and  variety  of  land  bills  with  the  ex- 

pansion and  development  of  the  country 118 

2.  Muitary  Bounties 118 

a.  Great  increase  about  1850 118 

b.  Relation  to  homestead  and  nulroad  grants      ....  119 

c.  Western  opposition 120 

S.  Land  grants  to  railways 122 

a.  Attitude  of  homestead  advocates  toward  land  grants  122 

b.  The  Eastern  attitude 124 

c.  Southern  sentimoit 125 

d.  Influence  of  the  proposed  Pacific  rulway 125 

4.  Graduation 128 

a.  "Cullnig"  the  public  lands  —  Benton's  remedy    ...  128 

b.  He  Southwest  and  the  South  generally  favorable     .     .  127 

c.  Opposition  in  the  East 128 

d.  The  West  —  conflict  betwe<3i  the  frontier  states  and  the 

older  re^cms 128 

e.  Critidsm  of  the  graduation  principle ISO 


CHAPTER  X 

The  Political  and  LEomLATiTE  Hibtort  of  Homestead,  1844-1852  182 

1.  Growtii  of  the  homestead  sentiment 1S2 

2.  Importance  of  the  year  1852  in  the  history  of  the  public  lands  .     .  188 
8.  Activity  ol  the  National  Reformers 184 

a.  0t>i>08ition  to  Oay  in  1844 184 

b.  Various  conventicoa 184 


Contents  13 

PAaa 

4.  The  cmmpwgn  of  1848 ISft 

ft.    Adoption  of  ft  "homerteftd"  pUnk  by  Uie  Free  S<nleri    .  186 

b.  Split  between  the  Free  Soilen  ftnd  the  Land  Beftmneia  .  180 

c.  Vftn  Buren't  stand 187 

d.  Importance  <A  the  land  reform  iasue 188 

6.  Homestead  bills  in  Gngiess.  1848-1850 140 

ft.    Vftrious  bills  in  18A0 140 

(1)  Greeley's  m«»sure 140 

(2)  Bounty,  land  grant,  distribution,  ftnd  distribu- 
tion bills      141 

'))  The  Or^on  bill 148 

e.  Homeste  .1  in  1852 144 

ft.    Politicftl  importftnce 144 

b.  The  bill  in  Congress 144 

c.  Importance  in  Uie  presidential  campaign 146 

7.  Effect  of  the  electioa  of  185t 147 

CHAPTER  XI 

Thk  ArnruDS  or  tb>  Sxcnom  towabd  thb  HomnxAo  Biu,  ...  140 

1.  The  South     . 140 

a.  Comparatively  slow  devdopment  of  the  South     .     .     .  150 

b.  Emigration  from  the  South  to  the  West 160 

c.  Growing  hostility  of  the  West  toward  the  expansion  of 

slavery 151 

d.  De8erti<m  ct  the  Germans  in  the  N<»thwest  from  the 

Democratic  to  the  Republican  party 151 

e.  The  homestead  Ull  called  a  scheme  to  settle  the  North- 

west and  to  create  new  states  hostile  to  slavery  153 

f.  Influences  favwable  to  homestead 157 

(I)  ThenewnsUtes 157 

(S)  The  "up^ountry,"  typified  in  Andrew  Johnson    .  158 

«.  The  East 161 

a.    Growing  tolerance  toward  a  homestead  law     ....  161 

(1)  Political  and  economic  o(»siderations    ....  162 

(2)  Hostility  toward  the  South 162 

(8)  The  kbor  influence 162 

8.  The  West 165 

a.    Practically  no  opposition  after  1852 165 


CHAPTER  Xn 

The  Strugquc  bktwxkn  Slatxbt  and  Fbxx  Lands 168 

1.  Close  connectitm  between  the  homestead  and  KansaseNebraska 

bills 168 

2.  Relation  of  homestead  to  the  tentorial  bill  illustrated  by  speeches  171 

3.  House  votes  on  homestead  and  Kansas-Nebraska  bills  compared  .  178 

4.  Homestead  bill  in  the  Senate 174 

a.  Situation  ccmfrimting  senators 174 

b.  Ddwte  on  provision  denying  benefits  to  foreigners    .     .  175 

c.  The  indigent  insane  iuli 177 

(1)  Pierce's  veto 178 

(2)  Effect  on  hopnrtMtd  bill 17» 


14  Content* 

d.    Hunter'*  lubstitute  pMMi  Senate \^ 

(1)  MoUvet  of  the  Southern  leader* »~ 

«.  House  refuK»  to  accept  Senate  robititute     •     •     •„  •     *     '  Jm 

fl.  Effect  in  the  Wert  of  the  faUure  of  the  home»teadbiU.     .     .     .  iw 

7.  Tho  graduation  law  of  1854  ^^ 

a.  Provi«ions jg.^ 

b.  Analyiii  of  vote .-« 

c.  Defecto **" 

CHAPTEBXin 

190 
THBHoimraAoBuLiHCoNOBiwi „ 

1.  Policy  of  the  South  after  1854       .     .     • {" 

«:ThehomerteadbillinCongreM.18«5-1859 JM 

8.  Tlie  homestead  bill  in  Congreai,  1860 .195 

*■    ^arGrow'ibilliiassedmidCTthe"gag"       •     '     •     *     }JJ 

(1)  Andrew  JohMon'i  WH \^ 

a.  Southern  oppoeitiOT     . \^ 

b.  Comparison  with  Houae  bill jw 

c.  Attempts  to  amend ^ 

d.  Opposition  from  Western  senators  •••*?* 
(«)  Influence  of  the  approaching  conventions  .  .  .  «» 
(8)  Change  in  tactics  of  the  Southern  opposiUon   .     .  W3 

(4)  Newbill       .     .     .  .  ; 2; 

a.  Western  oppoeiti<m ^ 

b.  Final  passage «»■ 

c.  Committees  of  conference "" 

(1)  The  compromise  bill *" 

d.  Buchanan's  veto    .     .     •     ■     .•      • L. 

(1)  Buchanan's  inaugural  and  first  message      *     •     '  Jik 

(«)  Grounds  of  the  veto *J* 

(8)  PoUtical  effects  of  the  veto     .     .     .     •     •     •     •  «" 

a.    Great  disappointment  m  the  Wert    •     •     •  *" 

(4)  Senate  faib  to  pass  bill  over  the  veto     •  .  •     •     •  *}* 

e.  HOTsebiU  reserving  lands  for  actual  settiersfaiUm  Senate  810 


I 


CHAPTER  XIV 

HoimraADAinTHiEiJCTioNorlMO  . gj 

1.  Homesteaa  m  sUte  elecUons.  1M4-1880        .      .     .     .     •      •     •  *" 

8.  Circular  of  the  "Congressional  Executive  Committee,    1859.     .  «g 

8.  The  influence  of  the  Germans        .     .     •••.,:     •     ■  „•     "  ZZZ 

B.    Reluctance  of  Germans  to  join  the  Republican  party      .  |«5 

(1)  Know-nothingism *2? 

(«)  Prohibition .■,•;•  ai» 

b.  German  influence  in  the  Republican  national  convention  M7 

c.  Effect  of  adoption  of  homestead  plank  by  Republicans  .  ^ 

4.  Evidence  of  importance  of  honiPst*ad  issue "™ 

6.  Difficult  situation  of  the  Democratic  party   . "" 

a.  Evidence  of  Andrew  Johnsons  popularity        •     •  •  ^ 

b.  Unfwtunate  position  of  Douglas »• 


Contenii  U 

rAsa 

6.  DougWs  homertead  racord  attacked  by  Republicani  .     .     .     .  t85 

a.  Defeiue  cl  the  Democrat! MA 

b.  Douglaa'i  ipeechei 2? 

7.  The  Bell-Everett  ticket •„••••  HJ 

8.  Importance  of  the  homestead  iaiueai  a  "vote  getter      .     .     .     .  SST 


CHAPTER  XV 

IE  HomsTEAD  Law.  186S .     .     .     .  MO 

1.  Cleavage  between  Eastern  and  Weatem  Bepubhcau  after  the 

leceasion  at  the  Southern  atatei CM 

ft.  Effect  of  the  war  —  conflict  between  homeitcad  and  bounties  to 

soldiers Jfi 

5.  Bill  passes  the  House.  Feb.  «8. 1868 Mi 

4.  After  amendment,  bill  passes  the  Senate.  May  e **» 

6.  President  Lincob  signs  bill.  May  20 <« 

6.  Provisions  of  the  law J^ 

7.  Criticism  of  the  law M4 

lETROSPECT     *** 

SlBUOOBAPHT "^ 


THE  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF 
THE  PUBLIC  LANDS 

FROM  1840  TO  1808 


THE  POLITICAL   HISTORY   OF 
THE   PUBLIC   LANDS 

FROM  1840  TO  1862 
CHAPTER  I 


8ECTIONAU8M   AND   THE   PUBUC    LANDS,    1880-184S 

THE  key  to  the  political  history  of  the  public  lands  is 
the  "fact  of  sectional  rivalries  and  combinations.'*  * 
Just  as  the  historian  must  interpret  the  ante-bellum  South 
in  terms  of  cotton,  he  must  read  the  speeches  and  votes  of 
Western  politicians  mindful  of  the  existence  of  a  vast  puL 
He  domain.  There  is  no  little  significance  in  the  fact  that 
the  authors  and  promoters  of  the  three  great  projects  for 
the  disposition  of  the  public  domain  about  1840  were  lead- 
ing men  in  Congress  and  prospective  candidates  for  the 
presidency.  The  development  of  the  West  had  been  phe- 
nomenal. The  exuberance  of  youth  and  strength  combined 
with  the  knowledge  that  the  East  and  the  South  were  court- 
ing favor  engendered  a  strong  feeling  of  self-consciousness.' 
"They  of  the  West  were  all  from  the  older  States,"  said 
Representative  Kennedy,  of  Indiana,"  .  .  .  "and  the  older 

» See  Frederick  J.  Turner,  BU0  of  tht  N0V)  W$it.  Chapter  1. 

■  See  speeches  of  James  E.  Belser,  of  Alabama,  Robert  C.  Winthrop, 
of  Massachusetts,  and  Henry  A.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  December  19,  1843.  Cong.  Olobe,  28  C<mg.,  1  S«s«., 
50-53. 

'Dec.  19,  1843.    Ibid.,  60. 


1 


w 


SO         The  Political  History  of  th*  PvbUe  Lands 

Statei  had  been  in  the  habit  of  looking  upon  them  a«  a  par- 
ent lookt  upon  absent  children.     The  older  States  had  been 
accustomed  to  look  upon  the  West  as  colonies  of  those  old 
States.     They  had  been  treated  as  children  who  had  left 
their  father's  hearth  to  make  the  Went  their  home;  but  they 
forget  that,  in  the  West,  they  had  grown  beyond  their  knowl- 
edge; and  if  they  still  looked  upon  the  West  as  a  mother 
does  upon  a  son,  who  had  left  the  paternal  roof,  as  always 
looking,  when  his  head  was  covered  with  the  frosts  of  many 
winters,  and  when  he  had  become  the  head  of  a  mighty  fam- 
ily and  a  powerful  nation,  as  when  he  was  playing  about 
his  mother's  knee  in  his  native  village,  they  were  much  mis- 
taken. .  .  .  The  West  no  longer  wanted  'milk  for  babes,* 
but  the  meat  of  men ;  and  what  was  more  they  would  have  it." 
Land  legislation  lay  close  to  the  Western  heart.     It  was 
the  greatest  single  interest  in  the  West  and  it  was  a  vital 
topic  of  discussion  in  the  settlers'  cabins,  in  the  State  legisla- 
tures, and  in  the  speeches  of  Western  congressmen.     Al- 
though the  pioneers  admitted  that  the  old  States  had  some 
rights  in  the  lands,  they  believed  it  was  to  the  interest  of  all 
sections  to  settle  the  new  territories  as  soon  as  possible  with 
industrious  inhabitants.*     They  had  little  patience  with  the 
early  policy  of  the  government  which  considered  the  public 
lands  as  a  source  of  revenue.     They  insisted  that  there  were 
other  means  of  securing  an  ample  fund  for  the  ordinary  de- 
mands of  government  expenditure.     The  pioneer  felt  that  in 
tearing  himself  away  from  the  comforts  and  advantages  of 
a  more  settled  community  and  in  striking  out  into  the  wilder- 
ness to  make  a  home  for  himself  and  his  children  in  the  midst 
of  hardships  and  privations,  he  was  rendering  a  distinct  ser- 
vice to  society.     Therefore  his  spokesmen  in  Congress  de- 

*Ntv)  York  Wttkly  Tribune.  May  15,  1858;  Daily  LouinUls  TimM. 
June  9,  1850. 


SectionaUiM  amd  tht  PvbUe  Lands 


n 


manded  that  he  be  rewarded  with  a  land  tyitem  which  would 
enable  him  to  icttle  on  a  tract  of  land  of  reasonable  liie,  to 
build  a  log  cabin  on  it,  and  to  cultivate  and  improve  it  with- 
out the  rifk  of  having  his  property  bought  from  under  him. 
In  order  to  protect  himself  from  speculatorf,  the  settler 
joined  with  his  neighbors  in  forming  organizations  known 
as   Claim   Associations."     These   associations   were   make- 
shifts to  tide  the  settlers  over  until  Congress  should  enact  a 
law  which  would  give  them  proper  legal  protection,  or  untU 
they  were  able  to  pay  for  their  claims.    The  large  number 
of  these  organizations  bore  witness  to  the  dissatisfaction  in 
the  West  with  existing  land  laws  and  the  need  for  a  pre- 
emption system.     In  a  sense,  Claim  Associations  were  formed 
in  order  to  violate  law,  but  they  were  not  so  regarded  by  the 
squatters.'     The  squatter  ideal  is  one  of  the  oldest  things 
in  American  life;  it  goes  back  to  the  very  6rst  years  of 
colonial  history.     Squatting  on  waste  lands  was  a  right  and 
the  squatter's  point  of  view  was  that  laws  interfering  with 
this  right  were  unjust  and  of  non-effect.     In  the  words  of 
a  Western  editor,  "Claim  Associations  are  organizations 
pecuUar  to  the  West.     The  tide  of  emigration  is  always  in 
advance  of  surveys  and  land  sales  authorized  by  the  govern- 
ment. .  .  .  These  men  are  the  true  pioneers,  that  open  the 
country  to  the  skill  and  capital  of  more  thorough  improve- 
ment and  extended  commerce.     We  would  have  their  acts 
legalized  and  the  benefits  resulting  from  their  hardy  enter- 

•Macy,  JnttUutUmal  BtgimniHgt  im  a  W**t»r%  Stat*.  Jokn$  Hop- 
Mm  StudUt.  II.,  34S-38S;  Shambwigfa,  ComtiMio*  and  R»eord$  of  «»• 
Claim  A$ioeiation  of  Johnton  County,  lova. 

•"It  is  useless  to  say  anything  in  jusUflcation  or  explanation  of  com- 
binations of  this  character,  as  they  have  become  a  part  of  the  estab- 
lished common  law  of  the  West,  and  are  based  upon  that  fundamental 
element  of  democracy-popular  will,  and  the  first  law  of  nature-self- 
defence »    at.  PoUr't  Oonrttr,  April  i6,  1855. 


t 


ItSt         The  PoUtical  History  of  the  Public  Landa 


I 


I! 


i 


I 


prise  more  jfinnly  secured  to  them.  For  this  purpose,  we 
desire  to  see  the  pre-emption  laws  applied  to  all  lands  the 
moment  the  Indian  title  is  extinguished.  But  we  would 
guard  the  statute  with  provisions  as  strong  as  language  is 
capable  of  expressing,  against  speculators  deriving  the  bene- 
fit of  making  claims,  and  confine  the  privilege  strictly  to 
actual,  bonafide  settlers."^  "What  laws  have  they  violated?" 
exclaimed  one  of  their  spokesmen  in  Congress.**  "Laws,  sir, 
which  '\o  injustice  to  every  poor  man  in  the  United  States 
who  is  unable  to  purchase  land,  and  seeks  a  home  where  he 
can  support  himsJf  and  family;  laws  which  are  as  unreason- 
able as  they  are  unnecessary,  and  which  are  opposed  to  the 
moral  sense  of  the  people;  laws  which  it  would  require  a 
standing  army  of  a  hundred  thousand  men  to  enforce ;  which 
you  never  have  enforced ;  which  you  never  can  enforce ;  and 
which  ought,  in  my  opinion,  to  be  repealed  immediately."  • 

The  chief  service  of  these  organizations  was  rendered  in 
connection  with  the  land  sales.  Through  them  agents  were 
appointed  to  represent  the  settlers  at  the  sales  in  order  to 
bid  in  the  tracts  occupied  by  them.  A  sufficient  number  of 
settlers  was  present  to  intimidate  speculators  from  bidding. 
Very  often  in  a  new  community  a  terrible  state  of  affairs 
grew  up  because  of  the  presence  of  claim  jumpers.     At  such 

^MinMtota  ChronicU  and  BtgUUr,  March  9,  1840. 

•Senator  Lyon,  of  Michigan,  Jan.  29,  1838.  Cong.  Globe,  85  Cong, 
3  Scss.,  Ap.  138.  Sec  also  speeches  of  Senators  Norvell,  of  Michigan, 
Jan.  27,  Fulton,  of  Arkansas,  Jan.  29,  and  Benton,  of  Missouri,  Jan. 
30,  1838.     Ibid.,  Ap.  129,  136,  143. 

•Compare  the  Eastern  attitude  as  represented  by  Senator  Davis,  of 

Massachusetts "They  are  banded  and  associated  together  to  resist 

the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  to  maintain  their  claims  against  all 
opposition.  They  have  constitutions,  aii  they  term  them;  and  for  what? 
...  To  set  at  defiance  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  their  own  prop- 
erty." Feb.  9,  1837.  Cong.  Debatet,  24  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  767,  768.  See 
also  speech  of  Representative  White,  of  Kentucky,  May  28,  1840.  Cong, 
Globe,  96  Cong.,  1  Sesa.,  420. 


Sectionalitm  and  the  Public  Lands 


ts 


times  the  members  of  a  Claim  Association  formed  a  vigilance 
committee  to  arrest  the  violators  of  club  law  who  in  many 
cases  were  accorded  an  impartial  trial  but  frequently  they 
were  treated  with  scant  courtesy,  to  say  the  least."     In 
most  cases  squatters  felt  perfectly  secure  on  their  claims 
through  the  operation  of  the  "conventional  law,"  yet  they 
f-^lt  that  a  condition  which  compelled  them  to  resort  to 
anti-legal    combinations    and    force   was    unfortunate    and 
dangerous."     There  was  a  fundamental  difference  in  the 
attitude  of  the  old  States  and  the  new  towards  land  legisla- 
tion."   The  former  desired  laws  which  should  check  a  rapid 
movement  of  population  from  the  East  to  the  West  while 
the  latter  desired  to  offer  every  possible  inducement.     The 
Western  man  claimed  that  the  Eastern  point  of  view  was 
dictated  by  selfishness  and  jealousy  and  the  lack  of  knowl- 
edge of  Western  conditions.     "The  old  States  want  the  land 
in  the  new  to  bring  the  highest  possible  price,"  said  a  sena- 
tor from  the  West,"  "that  they  may  have  annually  more 
money  packed  over  the  mountains  to  be  spent  among  them 
"Western  papers  contain  many  accounts  of  the  operatlona  of  Claim 
Associations.    See  Minne$ota  Daily  Pioneer,  Feb.  27,  1850;  Sept.  11  and 
12,  1854;  March  15  and  91,  1855;  St.  Paul  I  aily  Timee.  Feb.  IS,  1859; 
The  Minnetotian,  Jan.  24  and  July  17,  1852;  Minne$ota  Statesman.  Aug. 
5,  1859;  Saint  Peter's  Courier,  Aug.  16,  1855;  Omaha  Nebratkian,  Feb. 
25  and  Aug.  19,  1857;  Weekly  Western  Argus  (Wyandotte  City,  Kan- 
sas Territory),  Feb.  4,  1860. 

'^Hawkeye  and  7oica  Patriot  (Burlington),  Jan.  25  and  March  4, 
1841;  Iowa  Territorial  Gazette  and  Burlington  Advertiser,  Jan.  4,  1840, 
and  Feb.  27,  1841. 

"See  Wellington,  The  PolUical  and  Sectional  Influence  of  the  Public 
Lands  18g8-184t,  Chapter  1;  Colgrove,  T'ne  Attitude  of  Congress  to- 
ward the  Pioneers  of  the  West  from  1789  to  ISiO.  The  Iowa  Journal 
of  History  and  Politics.  VIII,  No.  1,  especially  pp.  7-34  (Jan.,  1910); 
aUo  The  Attitude  of  Congress  toward  the  Pioneers  of  the  West  18t0- 
1850.   Ibid.,  IX,  No.  2  (April,  1911). 


"Sevier,  of  Arkansas,  Jan. 
Ap.  65. 


16,  1841.    Cong.  Globe,  26  Cong,  2  Seas., 


S4  The  PoUticdl  History  of  the  Public  Landt 

on  their  wharves,  light-houses,  buoys,  and  breakwaters,  and 
the  Lord  knows  what." 

There  were  several  reasons  why  the  more  conservative 
States  of  the  East  were  opposed  to  such  a  great  change  in 
the  land  policy  as  pre-emption  implied.     They  were  un- 
willing to  accelerate  the  growth  of  an  already  rapidly  de- 
veloping section  whose  social,  political,  and  economic  in- 
terests were  so  vastly  different  from  their  own.     The  East- 
ern farmer  felt  the  pinch  when  the  call  of  cheap  land  at- 
tracted his  sons  and  neighbors  to  the  West  and  the  competi- 
tion of  Western  lands  and  products  reduced  the  value  of  his 
farm  and  lowered  the  prices  of  his  crops.     The  business  man 
of  the  seaboard  felt  the  influence  of  westward  migration  in 
his  diminished  earnings  caused  by  the  resulting  higher  wages 
paid  to  his  employees  in  order  to  induce  them  to  remain  at 
home.     The  power  of  the  West  in  the  legislative  councils 
of  the  Nation  was  becoming  increasingly  great;  Western 
democracy  had  already  overturned  many  cherished  political, 
social,  and  religious  traditions  of  the  East.     It  was  natural, 
therefore,  to  oppose  a  policy  which  would  tear  down  t.;  ^ 
East  in  order  to  build  up  the  West." 

The  land  question  has  always  been  closely  connected  with 
the  problem  of  immigration."  In  all  sections  of  the  coun- 
try, but  especially  in  the  East,  native  Americans  have  been 
alarmed  at  the  increasing  number  of  aliens,  different  in 
language,  customs,  religion,  and  political  ideas,  who  have 

"See  speeches  of  Senator  Preston,  of  South  Carolitia,  Jan.  7,  1841. 
Cong.  aiob».  86  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  Ap.  49-44;  Mangum,  of  North  Carolina, 
Jan.  11,  1841.  Ibid.,  Ap.  48-51.  ResoluUons  of  the  Legislature  of 
North  Carolina.    Howe  Journal,  26  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  234.  235. 

"See,  for  example,  Boston  AtUu,  Jan.  28,  1841;  PhUadelphia  North 
A-mtHcan,  Jan.  15,  1841;  Doily  Republican  Banner  (NashvUle),  Jan.  81 
and  Feb.  8,  1841 ;  speech  of  Merrick,  of  Maryland,  Jan.  2T,  1838.  Cong. 
Globe,  85  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  Ap.  130,  131. 


SectiondUtm  and  the  Public  Lands  t* 

Ipcrceptibly  altered  the  structure  of  American  society  and 
linstitutions.     Eastern    congressmen    sounded    the    alarm 
lagainst  a  Uberal  land  system  which  would  invite  to  this 
Icountry  "all  the  ends  of  the  earth,  the  bandit  of  the  Ap- 
Ipehines,  the  mercenary  Swiss,  the  hungry  loafer  of  the  cities 
lof  the  Old  World,  the  offal  of  disgorged  jails,  penitentiaries, 
land  houses  of  correction  of  foreign  countries."  ** 
I     There  were,  however,  men  in  the  odd  States  who  were  able 
to  reconcile  liberal  land  legislation  with  sectional  loyalty. 
They  understood  that  the  faster  the  West  could  be  settled 
land  cultivated,  and  the  more  independent  and  thrifty  the 
Isettlers,  the  greater  would  be  the  demand  for  the  market  of 
jthe  seaboa   i."     They  also  recognized  that  the  principal 
cause  of  the  high  standard  of  labor  in  the  United  States  in 
comparison  with  that  of  other  countries  was  due  to  the  ample 
territory  from  which  subsistence  might  be  drawn."     The 
increase  of  immigration  and  of  the  urban  population  con- 
vinced certain  labor  leaders  and  philanthropists  that  a  lib- 
eral administration  of  the  laws  would  improve  the  conditions 
of  the  laboring  classes  by  drawing  off  the  surplus  popula- 
tion."    The  existence  of  large  numbers  of  squatters  on  the 
public  domain  organized  into  associations  defying  the  law 
1  opened  the  eyes  of  some  to  a  dangerous  situation  and  the 
[  need  for  a  change. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  century  the  right  of  pre-emp- 
tion had  been  granted  to  certain  individuals  and  to  settlers 
1  in  restricted  areas  in  the  form  of  reUef  measures."*     The 
"Speech  of  Mangum.  of  NortL  Carolina,  Jan.  11,  1841.    Cong.  Olob; 
26  Cong.,  8  Sess.,  Ap.  48. 
"NeiB  York  W«ekly  Tribun$.  May  15,  1859.  «-  ^     . 

-Speech  of  Hamlin   (Me.).  July  8.  1848.     Cong.  Olob,,  »  Cong., 

1  Sess    1073 
»See  Commona   et   al.    (eds.).  Docvmentary    HUtory   of  Indmtrial 

Society.  VII.,  288  seq.  and  VIII.,  «1  seq.  „  .    ^  „,  ^         r-i-. 

-SaW»  BUtory  of  th,  Lomd  QMntUm  fo  tk»  UfMod  Statu.    Jokm, 


I 


M         The  Political  Hiatory  of  the  Public  Lands 

principle  was  gradually  extended  until,  in  1830,  Congress 
enacted  the  first  general  prospective  pre-emption  law  which 
was  to  remain  in  force  one  year.  Although  this  law,  with 
modifications,  was  renewed  from  time  to  time,  nothing  but 
a  permanent  law  would  satisfy  the  West. 

The  leader  of  the  movement  for  such  a  law  was  Thomas 
Hart  Benton,  of  Missouri.  Although  a  j.ative  son  of  North 
Carolina  and  a  representative  of  a  slave  State,  Benton  was 
a  true  Western  man  and  a  strong  nationalist.  He  was  one 
of  the  first  two  senators  from  Missouri,  tod  within  three  or 
four  years  after  his  election  he  introduced  his  first  perma- 
nent pre-emption  bill.*^  Although  voted  down  time  and 
again,  he  kept  his  measure  before  the  Senate  until  it  was 
finally  placed  on  the  statutes  almost  a  score  of  years  later. 

As  a  companion  measure,  which  he  first  introduced  in 
1826,*'  Benton  pressed  a  graduation  bill  which  provided 
that  the  price  of  the  public  lands  should  be  graduated  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  years  they  had  been  in  the  market 
until  the  lowest  price  of  twenty-five  cents  per  acre  was 
reached  when  they  were  to  be  donated  in  lots  of  eighty  acres 
to  actual  settlers.*' 

Naturally  Benton  encountered  the  greatest  opposition  to 
his  pre-emption  measure  from  Eastern  senators,  and  espe- 
cially those  from  New  England  where  the  manufacturing 
interests  desired  cheap  labor,  a  dense  population,  and  a 

Hopkins  Studies,  Vol.  IV.,  gives  an  account  of  the  early  pre-emption 
acts.  Before  the  existence  of  the  national  domain  certain  States,  nota- 
bly Pennsylvania,  had  granted  credit  and  relief  measures  to  settlers  on 
waste  lands,  which  served  as  precedents  for  later  legislation.  A.  C. 
Ford,  Colonial  Precedtntt  of  Our  Nation(U  Land  Syttm  at  It  Eseisted 
in  1800.    Bullttin  of  the  Vnivertity  of  Witeonein,  No.  352,  123  seq. 

"Meigs,  The  Life  of  Thomat  Hart  Benton,  165;  Wellington,  6  seq. 

"Meigs,  165-167. 

*iSee  below, 


SectiondUam  and  the  Public  Londt 


m 


Iprotcctive  tariff.    The  connection  between  the  puUic  lands 
land  the  tariff  was  very  close.     The  stream  of  revenue  which 
Iflowed  into  the  national  treasury  from  the  custom  houses 
land  land  offices  in  the  later  twenties  and  early  thirties  bore 
[witness  to  the  prosperity  of  the  country  and  warned  states- 
|men  that  they  would  soon  be  confronted  with  the  problem 
lof  a  surplus.     As  early  as  1829  President  Jackson  recom- 
I  mended  a  law  providing  for  a  distribution  of  the  surplus 
Iwhen  it  should  become  a  reality;'*  but  public  men  were 
chary  of  the  financial  question,  as  it  involved  two  great  in- 
Iterests  of  the  country:  the  tariff  and  the  public  lands.     To 
1  lower  the  tariff  was  to  incur  the  enmity  of  the  manufactur- 
ing interests  of  the  East;  to  stop  the  sale  of  the  public  lands 
I  was  not  to  be  tolerated  in  the  West;  and  to  give  them  away 
vras  equally  odious  to  the  East  and  South." 

It  was  under  such  circumstances  that,  by  a  political 
ImanoBuver  engineered  by  Clay's  political  enemies  in  the  Sen- 
ate, the  public  land  question  was,  in  1832,  referred  to  the 
committee  on  manufactures  of  which  Clay  was  chairman." 
In  the  very  able  and  convincing  report  submitted  to  the 
Senate  Clay  attempted  to  demolish  the  arguments  in  favor 
I  of  the  rival  land  schemes  and  then  made  an  eloquent  plea 
for  the  distribution  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  among 
"First  annual  mesMige,  Dec.  8,  19«9.    Richardaon,  A  Compitatiom  of 
I  tht  Me$$age$  and  Pafr$  of  th$  Prttidt*U,  II.,  459.    Jackson  did  not 
express  his  opinion  as  to  the  constitutionaUty  of  such  a  measure,  but 
suggested  a  constitutional  amendment  if,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress, 
I  such  a  law  was  contrary  to  the  Constitution.     Cf.  Dewqr,  FwoncW 
Uiitory  of  tht  UnUad  8tat«i,  ill  seq. 

■The  relation  of  the  pubUc  lands  to  the  tariff  from  1898  to  1838  is 
discussed  by  Professor  Wdlington  in  his  PoUtieoi  and  BtetUmal  /*• 
Huence  of  the  Public  Lands.  1838-1842,  Chapter  9,  and  in  American 
Historical  Association,  B«port  for  1911, 1,  1T9-18*,  and  by  J.  C  Ballagh 
in  Ibid.,  1898,  pp.  991-96S. 

»aay  to  Brooke,  March  98,  1839.  Cdton,  Tho  PfiiMU  Corrufmidr 
•nes  of  Honry  Clay,  SSO,  SSI. 


S8  The  Politicai  Hiatory  of  the  PubUc  Landt 


the  States  according  to  their  federal  ratio.^^  Branding  as 
false  the  charge  that  he  was  hostile  to  Western  interests, 
he  declared  that  what  the  Western  people  wanted  was  a 
more  liberal  expenditure  of  the  land  revenue  among  them 
and  not  a  change  in  the  system.  Turning  to  the  nuUifiers 
and  extreme  State  rights  men,  he  described  the  State  govern- 
ments and  the  federal  government  as  two  in  form  and  one 
in  substance  and  the  public  domain  as  one  of  the  bonds  of 
union.  Why,  therefore,  he  asked,  should  not  the  federal 
government  go  to  the  relief  of  the  States  in  their  hour  of 
financial  need  and  distribute  revenues  derived  from  the  sales 
of  the  public  lands,  a  form  of  revenue  entirely  different  in 
nature  from  that  derived  from  taxation? 

Clay's  report  was  in  the  nature  of  a  compromise  and  it 
was  a  very  clever  one.  He  had  taken  care  not  to  heat  a 
furnace  for  his  foes  so  hot  that  it  might  singe  himself  and 
he  had  devised  a  scheme  to  maintain  a  protective  tariff — 
highly  pleasing  to  the  manufacturing  interests — in  spite  of 
a  surplus  revenue  and  at  the  same  time  to  enlist  the  sup- 
port of  the  friends  of  internal  improvements,  especially  in 
the  West. 

For  the  next  ten  years  Clay's  land  policy  was  the  target 
for  the  most  ruthless  opposition  from  Benton  who  attacked 
it  because  it  was  incompatible  with  his  plan  to  reduce  the 
price  of  public  lands  in  favor  of  actual  settlers,  and  be- 
cause it  would  mean  a  revival  of  a  heavy  tariff  which  would 
fall  most  heavily  on  the  planting,  grain-growing,  and  pro- 

"Colton,  Th0  Worki  of  Henry  Clay,  V.,  487-615;  Schura,  Henry  Clay, 
U  371;  Benton,  Thirty  Yeart'  Viev),  I.,  276.  E.  G.  Bourne  in  his  Hit- 
tory  of  the  Surplut  Revenue  of  1837  (pp.  10,  11)  mistalces  tlie  drcum- 
stances  of  tlie  report.  He  says  tljat  tlie  friends  of  distribution  cleverly 
got  the  question  of  the  public  lands  referred  to  the  committee  on  man- 
ufactures because  the  committee  on  public  lands  was  made  up  of  men 
hostile  to  the  "American  System." 


SectionaUam  and  the  Public  Lands  19 

irision-growing  States.*'  He  also  believed  it  was  uncon- 
stitutional and  violated  the  cession  agreement  of  the  original 
IStates. 

Benton's  followers  were,  of  course,  hostile  to  distribution, 
land  the  hostility  was  especially  marked  in  the  newer  sections 
lof  the  West  where  it  was  believed  that  in  their  eagerness  to 
Isecure  large  shares  of  the  land  fund  for  their  respective 
Istutcs,  congressmen  from  the  old  States  would  vote  to  hold 
lup  the  land  sales  from  year  to  year  until  the  prices  of  lands 
I  would  reach  a  high  figure,  thereby  retarding  settlement.*' 

The  supporters  of  Clay's  measure  were  confined  mainly 
I  to  those  regions  where  a  protective  tariff  and  internal  im- 
Iprovements  were  popular  and  where  the  States  were  bur- 
Idened  with  heavy  debts.'"     The  devotees  of  a  high  tariff  wel- 
I  corned  distribution  as   a  means  of  withdrawing  from  the 
treasury  a  surplus  which  would  be  a  strong  argument  for 
reducing  the  revenue  by  cutting  down  the  rate  of  duties. 
The   Democratic   Eastern    opposition   to   distribution    at- 
tacked it  as  a  measure  hostile  to  State  rights,  a  pretext  for 
la  high  tariff,  and  a  disguised  assumption  of  State  debts.'* 

"Benton's  Resolutions,  December  97,  1839.  Cong.  Olob«,  86  Oong., 
1  Sess.,  82,  83;  speech,  Jan.  6,  1840.  Ibid..  86  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  Ap.  85-«Si 
I  speech,  March  31,  1840,    Ibid.,  96  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  997. 

"Cong.  Globe,  96  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  131,  139. 

"There  is  a  great  mass  of  material  proving  this  point.  A  few  of 
the  more  important  references  are  cited  i  Resolutions  of  the  New  York 
Assembly,  Houit  Journal,  97  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  99,  100;  Mass.  Legislature, 
\lbid.,  165,  166;  Connecticut  Legislature,  Ibid.,  195,  196;  Rhode  Island 
Legislature,  Houta  Journal.  96  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  345;  Vermont  Legis- 
lature, Cong.  Globe,  26  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  399;  Delaware  Legislature,  Senate 
Documents,  96  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  Doc.  No.  143;  Pennsylvania  Legislature, 
Ibid.,  Doc.  No.  142;  Maine  Legislature,  Nile*'  Begieter,  LX.,  91;  Mes- 
sage of  Gov.  Seward,  of  N.  Y.,  1839,  1840  and  1849.  G.  E.  Baker 
(ed.).  Worke  of  Wm.  B.  Seward,  II.,  391,  417;  Message  of  Gov.  Davis, 
of  Mass.  National  Intelligencer,  Sept  14,  1849. 

*»See  particularly  the  New  Hampsbire  (^position:     Re8oluti<»s  of 


4; 


80         The  PoUticdl  History  of  the  PubUe  Landt 

Distribution  had  an  advantage  over  jpre-emption  in  that 
it  had  a  genuine  popularity  in  two  large  sections  of  the 
country.  A  combination  of  protection  and  distribution  was 
a  good  working  basis  for  Eastern  and  Western  Whigs.  The 
seven  or  eight  years  following  the  panic  of  1837  were  very 
gloomy,  particularly  for  the  West  where  internal  improve- 
ments had  been  undertaken,  and  it  w>\9  felt  that  it  was  no 
more  than  just  that  the  States  in  which  the  public  lands 
were  situated  should  share  in  their  proceeds  in  order  to 
bolster  up  their  tottering  finances.  Moreover,  many  West- 
erners desired  protection  for  their  infant  industries." 

Distribution  had  its  enthusiasts  in  great  number  in  the 
East  and  West,  but  with  the  exception  of  the  high  tariff 
sugar  planters  in  Louisiana,  certain  protectionists  in  other 
districts,  and  the  friends  of  internal  improvements,  espe- 
cially in  North  Carolina,  the  South  was  generally  hostile 
to  it.*'     The  cotton  planter — the  real  power  in  Southern 

the  Legislature  of  N.  H.  Hoiut  Journal,  97  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  194,  195; 
Ibid.,  37  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  903,  577;  Senate  Documenti,  36  Cong.,  1  Seas., 
Doc.  No.  97;  speeches  of  Levi  Woodbury.  Cong.  Olobt,  37  Cong.,  9 
Sess.,  379,  955;  see  also  Ibid.,  97  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  157;  speeches  of  Ather- 
ton.    Ibid.,  97  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  374. 

"From  a  mass  of  material  on  these  points  the  following  may  be 
cited:  Circular  from  Whig  Committee,  Address  to  the  People  of  Illi- 
nois, Mnrch  4,  1843.  Nicolay  and  Hay,  LineoWi  Worki,  I.,  75,  76; 
Message  of  Gov.  Wallace,  of  Indiana,  in  National  Intelligencer,  Jan.  9, 
1841;  Message  of  Gov.  Corwin,  of  Ohio.  Ibid.,  Dec.  31,  1840;  Resolu- 
tions of  Kentucky  Legislature.  Senate  Documente,  96  Cong.,  3  Sess., 
Doc.  No.  115;  also  Home  Journal,  96  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  336,  937;  Clay's 
speech.  Cong.  Globe,  97  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  353;  Memorial  of  Citisens  of 
Ohio.  Cong.  Globe,  96  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  393. 

"Phillips,  Southern  Whigs,  Turner  Ettayt,  914;  National  Intelli- 
gencer, April  13,  1843;  Richmond  Whig,  Aug.  10  and  13,  1841;  Augueta 
(Ga.)  Chronicle,  quoted  in  National  Intelligencer,  Oct.  98,  1849,  and 
Oct  11,  1843;  Whig  Convention  at  Raleigh,  N.  C,  National  Intelli- 
gencer, April  19,  1843;  Baltimore  American,  July  17  and  Dec.  18,  1841, 
Jan.  6  and  March  98,  1849;  The  Floridian  (Tallahassee),  Feb.  19,  ISiCj 


1 


SectionaUam  and  the  Public  Lamd$ 


81 


olitics— was  generally  found  in  opposition  to  any  policy 
fhich  leaned  toward  a  high  tariff."*  Of  course,  men  who  trod 
|n  the  foot-steps  of  Calhoun,  besides  their  low  tariff  scruples, 
bould  not  reconcile  a  measure  so  closely  related  to  the  a»- 
Lumption  of  State  debts  with  their  interpretation  of  the 
;;on8titution." 

Those  familiar  with  the  bitter  political  enmity  between 
:iay  and  Calhoun  need  not  be  told  that  the  great  nullifier 
iras  an  ardent  opponent  of  distribution.'"  If  the  lands  be- 
longed to  the  States  in  their  united  federal  character,  argued 
!:;alhoun,  then  the  federal  government  was  their  agent  and 
Lould  not  distribute  the  proceeds  for  their  individual  use, 

ecause  the  fund  was  derived  from  property  held  in  their 
jnited  and  J  ^eral  character.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
hands  belonged  to  the  States  individually  and  separately, 
Ithen  the  government  not  only  had  the  right  but  was  bound 
\o  apply  the  revenue  to  the  separate  use  of  the  States.     But 

Urth  Carolina  Standard,  Jan.  IS,  1841;  Richmond  Enquirer,  Dec.  7 
Inl  Feb.  19,  1841;  New  CrUam  Bt*,  quoted  in  NiUt'  BtgUttr,  LXIU 
P4J,  S44. 

••Phillips,  Bouth0m  Wkigt,  915. 

""It  is  a  measure  having  for  its  end  the  taxation  of  the  planting 
Interests  of  the  South  to  give  it  as  a  bounty  to  the  manufacturers  of 
Ihe  Eastern  states.  The  distribution  policy  is  the  revival  of  a  worse 
System  of  taxation  than  the  'tariff  of  abominations."*     Tht  Mittittip- 

m,  April  30,  1841.  Congress  has  no  power  to  divert  any  portion  of 
Ihe  "common  fund,"  for  the  common  purposes  of  the  Union,  to  satisfy 
the  demands  of  the  separate  states.  This  money  deducted  from  the 
treasury  must  be  replaced  by  some  means  and  this  wil!  be  a  protective 
[ariff.    Richmond  Enquirer.  Jan.  7,  1841.    "Resolved  that  distributi<m 

an  impolitic,  unauthorized  and  unomstitutional  waste  of  the  public 
aoney,  degrading  sovereign  states  into  pensioners  of  the  Ft^  :*ral  gov- 
brnment  and  furnishing  a  fraudulent  pretext  for  a  tariff."  Adopted 
^t  Democidtic  meeting  at  Charleston,  S.  C.  Richmond  Enquirer,  Juno 
11,  1841.    These  are  typical  of  the  sentiment  in  the  South. 

"Calhoun's  speeches  on  distribution,  Jan.  33  and  Aug.  94,  1841,  in 
Works  (ed.  by  Cralli),  III,  ««0-o8S;  IV,  13-18. 


The  PoUtical  Hutory  of  the  PvbUe  Landi 


1 


f: 

i. 


I 


I 


he  concluded  that  the  latter  alternative  could  not  be  true 
because,  according  to  the  cession  agreements,  the  lands  were 
held  as  a  common  fund,  and  the  lands  lying  within  the  Louis- 
iana Purchase  and  Florida  had  been  purchased  out  of  the 

common  fund. 

After  reading  Calhoun's  correspondence  no  one  can  doubt 
that  he  earnestly  desired  the  nomination  for  the  presidency 
both  for  his  own  sake  and  for  his  country."     There  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  not  have  had  that  ambition ;  he  stood 
for  a  certain  type  of  government  which  he  was  anxious  to 
set  in  practical  operation.     But  he  knew  he  could  not  attain 
that  high  station  by  means  of  Southern  popularity  alone. 
By  a  series  of  measures  skillfully  harmonizing  the  interests 
of  the  South  and  West  he  might  cement  the  bonds  of  political 
friendship  between  those  sections  and  thereby  ultimately 
reach  the  goal.     Calhoun  was  a  keen  political  observer  and 
he  saw  that  the  vigorous,  enthusiastic,  and  expanding  West 
was  dissatisfied  with  the  land  system.     The  West  was  un- 
easy at  the  thought  that  at  some  future  date  Congress  might 
raise  the  price  of  public  lands  and  thereby  retard  settlement 
and  development.'*     Neither  did  Western  States  relish  the 
idea  of  having  millions  of  acres  of  unsettled  and  untaxable 
"Chapter  3  of  Wellington's  J»fluene0  of  the  Publie  Lmdi  oontalns 
some  interesting  and  valuable  information  about  Calhoun's  motiTes  and 
political   wire-pulling.     See   also    Hunt,   Calkoun,   947,   349;    AmUer, 
Ritchie,  156;  Dodd,  Statesmen  of  the  Old  South,  133,  134,  140. 

"Cong.  Globe,  26  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  Ap.  64  seq.  In  the  session  of  Con- 
gress, 1829-1830,  Senator  Foot,  of  Connecticut,  submitted  a  resolution 
calling  on  the  committee  on  public  lands  to  inquire  into  the  expediencj 
of  limiting  for  a  certain  time  the  sales  of  public  lands  to  those  then 
in  the  marlcet,  suspending  surveys,  and  abolishing  the  office  of  survqror- 
general.  It  drew  the  sharp  fire  of  Benton  and  other  Western  senators 
who  charged  that  in  their  desire  to  secure  cheap  labor  the  manufactur- 
ing interests  of  New  England  were  ready  to  sacrifice  the  West  See 
Benton,  Viiv,  I.,  130-143,  and  Wellington,  In/hteme*  of  the  PubUt 
Landi,  96  seq. 


SectionaUtm  and  th$  PMic  Ltmdt  88 

land  within  their  boundaries."' 

Next  to  that  of  the  currency  Calhoun  regarded  the  ques- 
tion of  the  public  land*  "the  moBt  dangerouf  and  difficult 
of  all  which  demands  the  attention  of  the  country  and  the 
Government."*®  Neither  distribution  nor  pre-emption,  in 
his  judgment,  would  correct  "the  disordered  action  of  the 
system"  because  "the  disease  lies  in  ownership  and  adminis- 
tration ;  and  nothing  short  of  parting  with  both  can  reach 
it."  The  great  increase  in  the  public  domain,  he  thou^t, 
made  it  a  dangerous  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  general 
government. 

Consistent  with  his  ideas  on  State  sovereignty,  Calhoun, 
in  1837,"  introduced  in  the  Senate  a  bill  proposing  to  cede 
the  public  lands  to  the  States  in  which  they  were  situated  on 
condition  that  a  certain  percentage  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
land  sales  should  be  paid  into  the  federal  treasury.*"    This 

•Besides  large  tracU  of  unsold  land  which,  of  course,  were  not 
taxed,  the  states  could  not  tax  lands  until  Ave  years  after  the  day  of 
purchase  from  the  government  This  arrangement  was  first  put  into 
effect  by  the  Ohio  Enabling  Act  of  1802  and  became  one  of  the  con- 
aitions  for  the  admission  of  pubUc  land  stetes.  Treat,  NatUmtU  Land 
System,  110  seq.  For  Western  agitation  in  favor  of  removing  this  re- 
striction in  tiie  years  1840  to  18«0  see  Cong.  Oloh;  «6  Cong.,  1  Sess, 
203,  369,  425,  426,  4T4;  IbH..  27  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  153,  347;  Ibid.,  27  Cong., 
3  Sess.,  294,  295;  Ibid.,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  279,  350;  Ibid..  29  Cong.,  2 
Sess.,  53,  121,  217.  »      .«  „ 

-Speech  Jan.  12,  1841.    Cong.  Olob0,  26  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Ap.  52-56. 

"Feb.  7,  1837.  Cong.  D^batM.  24  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  739  seq.;  Calhoun't 
Worki,  11.,  636-659.  The  scheme  was  not  original  with  Calhoun,  as  it 
had  been  advocated  in  Congress  as  early  as  1826.  See  HoMt  Journai, 
19  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  592,  May  18,  1826;  Cong.  D»b..  19  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  761, 
762;  Calhoun't  Works.  III.,  160;  Wellington,  Jnflutne0  of  *A«  Public 

Land;  7,  16,  17.  ^     «   ,^     _^ 

"The  bill  proposed  that  the  states  must  agree  to  pay  8SV4%  (Oiangea 
to  50%  and  65%  in  subsequent  bills)  of  Uie  gross  sales  to  tiie  United 
States.    Tlie  minimum  price  of  the  lands  was  to  remain  at  $1.25  per  acre 
until  Jan.  1,  1843,  when  a  graduation  scheme  should  go  into  effect.    The 
j     system  of  surveys  was  to  remain  the  same.  Calhoun't  Workt,  II.,  6S4-S«. 


84         The  PoUtical  Hutory  of  the  PtibUe  Land* 


meaaure  was  urged  on  the  grounds  that  it  would  remove  an 
immense  amount  of  federal  patronage,  counteract  central- 
ization, relieve  Congress  from  a  tedious  and  troublesome 
problem,*'  and  remove  the  cause  of  friction  between  the  old 
and  new  States/*  In  his  speech  on  this  occasion  Calhoun 
declared  that  he  had  "always  seen  that  there  was  a  period 
coming  when  this  Government  must  cede  to  the  new  States 
the  possession  of  their  own  soil;  but  he  had  never  thought 
till  now  that  period  was  so  near.  What  he  had  seen  this 
session,  however,  and  especially  the  nature  and  character  of 
the  bill  which  was  now  likely  to  pass,  had  fully  satisfied  him 
that  the  time  had  arrived.  There  were  at  present  ei^teen 
Senators  from  the  new  States.  In  four  years  there  would 
be  six  more,  which  would  make  twenty-four.  All,  therefore, 
must  see  that  in  a  very  short  period  those  States  would  have 
the  question  in  their  own  hands."  *" 

Calhoun's  measure  was  characterized  by  Senator  Niles,  of 
Connecticut,  as  a  "grand  new  land  scheme,  thrown  into  the 
Senate  like  the  golden  apple  of  discord."  **  Buchanan,  of 
Pennsylvania,  pronounced  it  "the  most  splendid  bribe  that 
had  ever  yet  been  offered.  It  was  to  give  the  entire  public 
domain  to  the  people  of  the  new  States  without  fee  or  re- 
ward." *''.,.  Benton,  spe  tking  in  opposition  to  the  propo- 
sition, reminded  the  senators  that  "we  were  now  within  less 

*  Report  of  committee  on  public  lands  on  cession.  Senator  Norrell, 
of  Michigan,  chairman,  May  13,  1840.  Calhovn'i  Work;  V.,  917.  "It 
would  probably  diminish  the  business  of  Congress  a  third  or  a  fourth, 
and  shorten  the  sessions  in  the  same  proportion,  and  if  followed  up  by 
other  measures  originating  in  the  same  spirit,  the  evil  may  be  kept  within 
reasonable  bounds,  notwithstanding  ofir  great  and  rapid  growth." 

**  Calhoun  declared  that  distribution  would  foster  the  very  things 
cession  was  designed  to  remove. 

•  Feb.  7,  18S7.    C(mg.  Deb.,  34  Cong.,  3  S«s.,  7S5. 
•Feb.  7.    Ibid..  734. 

•Feb.  7.    Ibid,  731. 


IjL. 


SteUonaUtm  and  iht  PtMie  Landt 


M 


than  three  ytaw  of  the  period  for  taking  the  new  census. 
...  By  that  time  we  should  probably  have  three  new 
States:  two  on  the  Mississippi,  and  tne  on  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico;  while  the  representation  of  the  new  States  already 
in  the  Union  would  be  greatly  enlarged.  .  .  .  The  West 
would  settle  this  question  of  the  public  lands  just  as  it 
pleased.  ...  In  three  years  more  they  could  write  their 
own  terms,  and  lay  them  on  the  table  of  the  Senate.***' 
Benton's  colleague,  Linn,  took  a  VTerent  view.  .  .  . 
"While  the  process  of  forming  new  States  was  going  on,  and 
the  representation  in  Congress  of  new  States  already  exist- 
ing was  rapidly  augmenting,  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten,** 
he  said,  "that  the  number  of  old  States  was  also  increasing, 
and  that,  consequently,  the  representatives  who  were  in 
favor  of  the  interests  of  the  old  States  were  becoming  more 
numerous.  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  others,  would  soon 
be  among  the  list  of  old  States,  and  their  influence  would 
be  exerted  accordingly.**  *' 

Calhoun's  scheme  was  indeed  an  apple  of  discord;  as  a 
political  move  it  was  quite  clever  and  Calhoun  has  had  few 
superiors  in  the  game  of  politics.  Although  cession  was 
naturally  odious  to  those  States — North  and  Soulii — hav- 
ing no  public  lands,  as  it  deprived  them  of  a  voice  in  the 
administration  of  the  public  doman,""  those  on  the  "inside** 

*  Feb.  7.  Ibid.,  T33.  Compare  speeches  ot  Sevier,  of  Arkansas,  Jan. 
16,  1841.  Cong.  Olobt,  96  Cong.,  9  Sefc».,  Ap.  64-67,  and  Davis,  of  In- 
diana, April  3,  1846.    Ibid.,  99  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  601-603. 

•  Feb,  7,  1837.  Cong.  Dab.,  94  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  734.  See  also  speeches 
of  Smith,  of  Indiana,  Jan.  14  and  15,  1841.  Cong.  Olobt,  96  Cong.,  9 
Sess.,  Ap.  67-74,  and  White,  of  Indiana,  Jan.  19,  1841.    Ap.  74-78. 

"  Resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  Kentuclcy.  a»nat»  Doevmenti,  96 
Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  No.  305;  Resolution  of  the  Legislature  of  New 
York.  Hout*  Journal,  97  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  99,  100}  CharUrton  Coitriir, 
Aug.  91,  I84I;  Th»  Maditonian,  quoted  in  yalional  InUlUganetr,  Dee. 
1,  1840{  Nilf  Bt^Ur,  LIX.,  991,  899. 


1; 


86  The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

knew  that  by  the  terms  of  the  bill  the  hands  of  the  land 
States  were  pretty  securely  tied.  In  the  South  it  was 
feared  less  than  Benton's  "humbug"  pre-emption  scheme 
and  to  Clay's  opponents  it  was  less  fatal  to  a  low  tariff  than 
distribution."  To  some  it  seemed  that  Calhoun  had  out- 
bid Benton  in  the  game  of  generosity  to  the  West. 

Although,  as  Wellington  says,  "nothing  was  more  natural 
than  that  the  South  and  West  should  draw  together  to 
make  a  political  alliance,  at  this  time,  against  their  common 
enemy,  the  Northeast,"  "  Calhoun's  reUnquishment  scheme 
failed  in  its  purpose.  No  doubt  the  bill  gained  Calhoun 
many  friends  in  the  West  where  Governor  Edwards,  of 
Illinois,  who,  besides  being  a  personal  friend  of  Calhoun,  was 
opposed  to  a  strong  centralized  government  and  eager  to 
unite  his  section  with  the  South  in  opposition  to  the  Northr 
east,  had  recommended  the  measure  in  his  message  to  the 
Legislature  in  1828,  but  the  popularity  was  more  apparent 
than  real."  In  the  first  place,  the  details  of  the  biU  were 
framed  in  order  to  restrict  as  much  as  possible  the  pi.blic 

"There  is  much  newspaper  material  on  this  point.  See  communi- 
cations to  the  Charleston  Courier.  May  27,  June  8  and  10,  1841;  N«v) 
York  Courier  and  Enquirer,  quoted  in  Ibid..  June  9.  1841;  Address  of 
the  Whig  Young  Men's  State  Convention  of  New  York,  New  York 
Weekly  Tribune,  Oct.  1,  1842. 

■  Wellington,  Influence  of  the  Public  Landi,  18. 

•»76id.,  14  seq.;  RaUigh  Register,  quoted  in  National  Intelligencer, 
Oct  26,  1842;  Reports  made  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
State  of  Illinois.  Twelfth  General  Assembly,  Nov.  26,  1840,  pp.  10, 
19-27,  29-35;  Resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  Arkansas,  Cong.  Globe. 
26  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  92;  Legislature  of  Alabama,  Ibid.,  224;  New  York 
Herald,  Washington  Letter,  quoted  ii.  Republican  Banner  (Nashville), 
Jan  30  1840;  Gov.  Woodbridge's  Message  to  Michigan  Legislature 
Democratic  Free  Press  (Detroit).  March  18,  1840;  Speech  of  Grundy, 
of  Tennessee,  Mnroh  4  and  .5.  1840.  Cong.  Olobe.  26  Cong..  1  Sess., 
Ap.  225,  seq.  See  also  Wellington,  Influence  of  the  Public  Lands, 
58  acq. 


SectionaUsm  and  the  Public  Lands 


Vt 


land  States  in  the  administration  of  the  lands ;  second,  a  very 
a^ge  percentage  of  the  land  revenue  had  to  be  tunned  over 
to  Se  federal  treasury;  third,  it  contained  no  provision  or 
pre-emption;  and,  fourth,  granting  that  the  transfer  of  the 
?itle  and  administration  of  the  \.rA  to  the  States  was  a 
wholesome  concession  to  the  W  st,  the  great  opposition  to 
this  feature  in  the  East  made  i  .  chance  of  becoming  a  law 

vef  doubtful. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Calhoun's  bill  never  mus- 
tered a  majority  vote  in  Congress,  it  remamed  a  topic  of 
newspaper  discussion  and  debate  in  Congress  for  twenty 

^'p'rom  this  brief  survey  it  is  evident  that  as  the  election 
of  1840  drew  nigh  the  disposition  of  the  pubhc  lands  was 
destined  to  figure  very  prominently  in  the  ««  -tion  of  can- 
didates and  in  the  verdict  of  the  voters.  All  public  men 
knew  that  the  West  had  its  ear  to  the  ground;  the  hard 
times"  following  the  panic  of  1837  had  put  it  in  no  mood  to 
be  trifled  with.    The  West  had  the  public  lands  and  it  had 

the  votes." 
-Sec  WeUington,  7n/f««nc»  of  th0  Pfiblie  Land,.  75. 


Hi 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  INFLUENCE  OP  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS  IN  THE  ELECTION  OF 

1840 


II  'it 


r  |lHE  interests  of  the  American  people  are  so  varied  that 
-■■  the  task  of  the  historian  in  seeking  out  the  "decisive 
issues"  in  presidential  campaigns  is  vexatious  and  discour- 
aging. Especially  is  this  true  of  the  log  cabin  and  hard 
cider  campaign  of  1840,  when  one  party  nominated  a  candi- 
date whose  principles  were  unknown  and  adopted  no  plat- 
form and  the  other  party,  by  virtue  of  unfortunate  domestic 
conditions,  was  reduced  to  the  defensive  in  meeting  attacks 
from  all  sides,  which  were  framed  so  as  to  make  counter 
attacks  of  little  effect. 

The  Democratic  party  came  ou  t  squarely  in  favor  of  pre- 
emption. It  adopted  a  platform  which  declared  specifically 
for  pre-emption  and  it  re-nominated  a  candidate  who  was 
known  to  favor  it.^  Moreover,  one  of  the  most  influential 
senators  in  the  party  had  been  a  life-long  advocate  of  pre- 
emption and  the  Democratic  majority  in  Congress  had  re- 
peatedly put  itself  on  record  in  its  favor.* 

The  Whigs  in  the  Harrisburg  convention  passed  over  their 
great  leader  and  logical  candidate  and  named  a  man  whose 
evasive  political  utterances  were  drowned  in  a  chorus  of 
lusty  hurrahs  for  the  hero  of  Tippecanoe.  The  victims  of 
"Democratic  hard  times"  in  all  sections  were  invited  to  cast 

» Wellington,  Influence  of  the  Public  Land*,  66  seq. 
*Ibid.,  56  seq.,  and  Chapter  4. 

88 


PvbUc  Landt  in  the  Election  of  1840 


89 


their  ballots  for  the  veteran  Indian  fighter  of  the  West. 
Four  years  before  he  ha.l  written  a  letter  in  which  he  said 
he  was  "perfectly  reconciled  to  the  distribution  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  public  lands  as  provided  for  by  the  bill  intro- 
duced by  Clay."'     He  also  declared  that  he  had  always 
been  the  advocate  of  that  mode  of  disposing  of  the  public 
lands   which  would   "create  the   greatest   number  of   free 
holders."     In  his  opinion  the  present  land  system  was  satis- 
factory, since  a  tract  of  reasonable  size  was  "easily  attain- 
able by  any  person  of  tolerable  industry."     Owing  to  the 
great  opposition  to  the  cession  scheme,  he  saw  "no  proba- 
bility of  it  being  adopted"  and  he  thought  "it  ought  no 
longer  to  be  insisted  on."     Considering  the  importance  of 
the  public  land  question  and  the  multi-colored  composition 
of  the  Whig  banner,  it  was  thought  safer  to  nominate  a  man 
whose  declarations  were  so  guarded  than  Henry  Clay  whose 
stubborn  opposition  to  pre-emption  had  offended  the  settlers 

of  the  West.* 

During  the  campaign  the  Whig  speakers  and  papers  had 
little  to  say  on  the  public  land  policy  and  when  they  did 
venture  into  this  dangerous  field,  their  words  were  tempered 
to  the  section  to  which  they  were  addressed.  Distribution 
was  a  distinct  asset  to  the  Whigs  in  those  States  where 
there  was  both  a  large  debt  and  a  seniiment  in  favor  of  a 
high  tariff."    It  was  natural  and  it  is  quite  probable  that  the 

»  Letter  to  Sherrod  WUllams  et  aL  National  InttlUff0ne0r,  July  98, 
1840.    Also  printed  In  the  Extra  Log  Cabin  (Greeley's  paper),  Aug. 

15,  1840. 

*Iowa  Ttrritorial  Oazttf  and  Burlington  Advtrtittr.  June  97,  1840; 
Ktntucky  Oazett;  April  30,  1840;  North  Carolina  Standard,  March 
11, 1840;  Waihington  Gl<>b0,  June  8,  1840. 

•FUes  of  the  National  Int$llig»nc0r  and  Dailif  Btpubliean  Banntr 
(NashviUe)  for  1840;  Extra  Log  Cabin.  Aug.  15,  1840;  Clay's  speech 
at  Hanover,  Va.,  National  IntBlligenctr.  July  3,  1840.  The  Philadelphia 
North  Amorieon  openly  advocated  distribution  and  so  did  the  Bo$Um 


40  The  Political  History  of  the  PvbUc  Landa 

party  having  the  support  of  men  with  the  well-known  prin- 
ciples of  Clay  and  Webster  had  the  sympathy  of  cap 
At  least  the  Democrats  were  known  to  be  opposed  to  distri- 
bution and  the  assumption  of  State  debts." 

In  some  instances  the  Whigs  brought  up  Jackson's  veto 
of  Clay's  distribution  measure  in  1833  and  insisted  that  as 
heir  to  Jacksonian  policies  Van  Buren  could  be  expected  to 
veto  any  future  bill  embodying  that  principle.''  There  was 
also  an  attempt  to  make  capital  out  of  Clay's  charge  that 
Calhoun's  reconciliation  with  Van  Buren,  shortly  before  his 
introduction  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  of  a  bill  to  cede 
the  lands  to  the  States,^  meant  that  the  measure  had  the 
backing  of  the  administration.^ 

Realizing  the  difficulty  of  conducting  a  campaign  against 

Atku  during  January  and  Februarj,  after  which  thejr  were  silent.  The 
Botton  Courier,  Richmond  Whig,  and  Newark  Daily  Advertiitr  were 
non-committal. 

•Bourne,  Surpltu  Revenue,  U;  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Pretideney, 
300;  Cong.  Globe,  27  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  396;  NcUional  Intelligencer,  April 

9,  1840;  Mittieeippi  Free  Trader  and  Natchez  Weekly  Oaxette,  Oct  15, 
1840;  Columbui  (Miss.)  Democrat,  June  90,  1840;  Washington  Olobe, 
Feb.  19,  1840;  Fort  Smith  (Ark.)  New  Era,  quoted  in  Arkansas  Btate 
Gazette,  Nov.  3,  1841;  North  Carolina  Standard,  June  10,  1840;  Rich- 
mond Enquirer,  Oct.  9,  1840;  Albany  Argus,  Sept.  4  and  11,  1840; 
Benton,  Thirty  Tears'  View,  II.,  240-947;  Cong.  Globe,  97  Coag.,  S  Sess., 
995;  Ibid.,  96  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  Ap.  114-190.  Webster  was  accused  of 
having  made  a  trip  to  England  to  secure  the  aid  of  capitaL 

^National  Intelligencer,  Jan.  11,  Oct.  13  and  90,  1840. 

*Jan.  3,  1840.    Clay,  Clay,  958,  959;  Calhoun  to  J.  E.  Calhoun,  Feb. 

10,  1840.     Calhoun's   Correspondence,  444,  445. 

*  National  Intelligencer,  Feb.  18,  1840;  Kenrtebee  (Maine)  Journal, 
quoted  in  Ibid.,  Oct  24,  1840;  Washington  Globe,  Jan.  4,  1840.  The 
Poughkeeptie  Telegraph,  quoted  in  the  North  Carolina  Standatd,  Oct 
38,  1840,  publishes  the  correspondence  between  Van  Buren  and  his 
political  opponents  in  Fishkill,  N.  Y.,  in  which  in  answer  to  their 
query  Van  Buren  denies  that  he  is  in  favor  of  cession.  He  refers 
them  to  his  message  of  1837,  wherein  he  makes  clear  his  position  on 
the  public  land  question, 


Public  Lands  m  the  Election  of  1840 


41 


f,  party  whose  tactics  consisted  in  keeping  their  principles 
L  the  background,  the  Democrats  used  their  utmost  en- 
deavors to  keep  the  public  land  question  open  in  Congress. 
,They  proposed  bills  and  resolutions  designed  to  draw  out 
Ithe  sentiments  of  their  opponents  and  pressed  them  to  a  vote 
L  as  to  put  them  on  record.    Much  sympathy  was  expressed 
Ifor  the  poor  down-trodden  settlers  and  the  "heartless  land 
speculator"  was  painted  as  black  as  any  present  day  con- 
gressman dare  paint  a  "trust  magnate."    Jacksonian  Demo- 
Icrat  that  he  was,  Benton  and  his  foUowers  held  up  the 
minority  before  the  public  eye  as  the  friends  of  the  money 
power  and  speculators.     In  order  to  strike  at  distribution 
land  put  the  Whigs  on  record,  he  introduced  a  series  of  reso- 
llutions  condemning  the  assumption  of  State  debts."     Dis- 
tribution of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
was  stigmatized  as  an  indirect  assumption  of  State  debts. 
I  The  Clay  Whigs  came  out  openly  in  favor  of  distribution  and 
before  Congress  adjourned  the  various  phases  of  the  land 
question  had  been  dragged  in.'»     While  Wise,  of  Virginia, 
who  represented  the  Southern  wing  of  the  Whig  coalition, 
was  denouncing  distribution  as  a  Whig  measure.  Clay  m  the 
other  end  of  the  capitol  was  defending  it.     In  the  Senate 
a  bill  extending  for  two  years  the  temporary  pre-emption 
act  of  1838  was  introduced  "  and  passed  by  a  vote  of  «6 
to  9,  six  Whigs,  including  Clay,  voting  in  the  negative  with 
I  four  Western  Whigs  in  the  affirmative."    In  the  House  the 

»•  See  John  Qulncy  Adams's  Mtnoin,  X.,  297. 

"Dec.  27,  1839.     Cong.  Olob;  26  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  82,  83. 

"See,  for  example,  speeches  by  Clay,  of  Alabama,  ^'1!:^'"  JSu 
of  Ohio,  Feb.  11.    Cong.  Glob0,  26  Cong,  1  Sess.,  Ap.  126-129,  309-814. 

« Wellington,  pp.  78  seq..  gives  the  proceedings  in  Congress  in  more 
or  less  detail,  with  citations. 

"  April  16,  1840.    Cong.  Olobt,  38  Cong.,  1  Sess^  381.- 

» April  21,  1840.    Ibid.,  34«. 


4t 


The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 


Whigs  made  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  kill  it  in  commit- 
tee '«  but  on  the  final  vote  many  of  them  voted  aye." 

The  Democrats  were  very  positive  in  their  denunciation  of 
the  Whigs  for  their  evasive  tactics  on  the  pre-emption  bill. 
They  claimed  it  as  a  party  measure  and  insisted  that  the 
Whigs  had  forfeited  whatever  credit  attached  to  its  enact- 
ment.**    Distribution  was  held  up  before  the  voters  as  a 
Whig  measure  and  one  which  was  sure  to  be  fatal  to  pre- 
emption and  graduation  and  a  forerunner  of  a  high  tariff 
and  extravagance  in  the  administration  of  the  government." 
The  political  campaign  of  1840  was  in  many  respects  one 
of  the  most  important  in  our  history.     The  student  of  our 
public  land  policy  must  set  it  down  as  a  landmark.    It  came 
at  the  end  of  a  decade  which  wrought  a  great  change  in 
public  sentiment  relative  to  the  public  domain.     The  West 
was  the  prize  which  both  parties  sought  to  gain.    This  new 
section  was  opposed  to  the  policy  of  using  the  lands  as  a 
means  of  producing  revenue,  and  for  a  long  time  Congress 
had  been  constantly  reminded  of  this  fact  through  numer- 
"May  20,  1840.     Ibid.,  405,  406.     Jacob  Thompson,  of  Mississippi, 
from  the  committee  on  public  lands,  explained  that  there  was  a  dead- 
lock in  the  committee-4  to  4-and  that  there  was  a  disposition  on  the 
part  of  the  opponents  of  the  bill  in  the  committee  to  bury  it.    In  order 
to  get  the  blU  before  the  House  the   friends  of  the  bill  agreed  to 
recommend  that  it  should  not  pass.  He  hoped  the  House  would  reject  the 
recommendation  of  the  committee.     The  Whigs  tried  other  means  to 
evade  the  issue. 
"  May  26,  1840.    Final  vote  126  to  46.    Ibid.,  420,  421. 
"  Wathififfton  Globe,  June  8  and  11,  1840;  Arkania$  8tat»  GazetU, 
June   24,    1840;   Albany   Argut,   June    19,   1840;   Rvchmond   Enquirer. 
Sept.  29,  1840;  New  Haven  Begitter,  quoted  in  North  Caroltna  Stand- 
ard, AprU   29,   1840;   MUtUtippi  Free    Trader,  Sept.    10,   1840;   Iowa 
Territorial  Gazette  and  Burlington  Advertiser,  Oct.  S,  1840. 

« Richmond  Enquirer,  June  25  and  July  14,  1840;  North  Caroltna 
Standard,  March  11.  1840;  The  Floridian,  Oct.  17,  1840;  Kentucky 
Gazette,  AprU  2,  1840;  Arkamae  State  Gazette,  Oct  31,  1840.  Citar 
tions  above. 


Public  Landt  in  the  Election  of  1840 


48 


0U8  memorials  of  State  legislatures  and  petitions  of  citi- 
zens.***    The  Whigs  by  laying  emphasis  on  the  deplorable 
financial  condition  of  the  country,  by  harping  on  the  need 
of  a  "change,"  and  by  eulogizing  their  candidate  as  a  great 
military  hero  and  successor  to  Jacksonian  simplicity,  suc- 
ceeded in  uniting  the  various  elements  of  opposition  to  Van 
Buren  and  won  the  battle.     In  spite  of  their  clear-cut  pub- 
lic land  policy,  the  Democ-^ts  went  down  to  defeat;  or, 
perhaps  it  is  more  correct  to  say  that  because  of  their  land 
policy  they  met  disaster.     The  Whigs,  by  hedging  here, 
condemning  there,  and  proclaiming  elsewhere,  won.     But 
their  victory  was  superficial;  in  the  end  Benton's  pre-emp- 
tion  policy   triumphed.     Much   of  the  opposition   to   the 
Whigs  in  the  new  States  must  be  attributed  to  their  enmity, 
supposed  and  red,  to  the  extension  of  the  right  of  pre- 
emption.   The  Democrats  carried  the  new  States  of  Arkan- 
sas, lUInois,  Missouri,  and  the  territorial  election  in  Iowa." 
In  the  other  sections  of  the  country  the  defeat  of  Van 
Buren's  platform  was  far  from  a  rout.     That  the  shifty 
Whig  public  land  policy  had  failed  was  demonstrated  when 
Congress  assembled  the  foUowing  yar.     The  piercing  eyes 
of  Calhoun  saw  this  when  a  few  weeks  after  election  he 
predicted  that  the  fate  of  the  coming  administration  rested 
on  the  public  land  question.** 

"Sato,  Land  Quettion,  130;  Meigs,  Benton,  163. 
''Iowa  Territorial  Gazettt  and  Burlington  Advtrtiitr,  Oct  17,  1840; 
Daily  Mitiouri  Republican,  March  19,  1840. 
"Calhoun   to   Burt,  Jan.   91,   1841.     Calhoun'i   Corretpondenct,   II., 

472. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  DISTBIBUTION-PRE-EMPTION  ACT  OF  1841 


THE  victory  of  the  Whigs  proved  to  be  their  undoing. 
When  the  country  sobered  down  after  the  hard  cider 
dissipation,  as  the  Democratic  papers  sarcastically  termed 
it,  it  became  apparent  that  the  Whigs  were  in  for  a  stormy 
time.  The  Harrison  leaders,  as  Calhoun  said,  were  deter- 
mined that  his  administration  should  commence  before  his 
inauguration.^  As  soon  as  Congress  convened  the  Demo- 
crats under  the  leadership  of  Benton  and  Calhoun  proceeded 
to  show  up  their  hypocrisy,  as  they  called  it,  during  the 
campaign.  They  claimed  that  the  West  in  voting  for  Har- 
rison did  so  believing  that  he  was  a  friend  of  pre-emption.' 
"Was  not  every  stump  worn  smooth  by  Whig  orators  in 
trying  to  convince  the  people  that  General  Harrison  was 
the  real  friend  of  the  West?"  asked  Senator  Sevier,  of  Ar- 
kansas.^ "Did  they  not  show  from  a  history  of  his  public 
life  that  he  had  always  voted  for  both  pre-emption  and 
graduation  bills?  Did  they  not  also  show  that  his  com- 
petitor had  so  late  as  1828  voted  against  these  measures?" 
Benton  insisted  that  the  Whig  promises  should  be  translated 
into  action  when  shortly  after  Congress  cDnvened  he  intro- 

'  Calhoun  to  Burt,  Jan.  34,  1841.    Calhoun't  Correipondtnee,  473. 

'WathingtoH  Olobe,  Dec.  14,  1840  and  Jan.  11,  1841;  Iowa  Terri- 
torial Gazette  and  Burlington  Advertiser,  Jan.  33,  1841;  North  Carolina 
Standard,  Jan.  30,  1841;  Helena  (Ark.)  Democrat,  quoted  in  Arkaneat 
State  Gazette,  Jan.  13,  1841;  The  MiMeieeippian,  Jan.  33,  1841;  Wash. 
Corr.,  Daily  Georgian,  Jan.  31,  1841. 

*Jan.  16,  1841.    Cong.  Globe,  86  Cong.,  9  Sesa.,  Ap.  67. 

44 


DittributionrPre-emption  Act  of  1841 


40 


duced  his  "Log  Cabin  bill"  which  provided  that  the  head  of  a 
family,  widow,  or  single  man  over  eighteen  years,  who  set- 
tled on  the  public  lands  to  which  the  Indian  title  had  been 
extinguished,  whether  surveyed  or  not,  or  who  had  resided 
on  th(  public  lands  since  June  SO,  1840,  should  have  the 
right  to  pre-empt  a  quarter  section  of  land  at  the  minimum 
price  of  $1.S5  per  acre,  provided  he  built  a  log  cabin  and 
made  improvements  on  it.^  Benton  declared  that  the  time 
was  particularly  favorable  to  such  a  bill,  since  all  parties 
and  their  candidates  had  favored  it  during  the  campaign. 

If  Benton's  purpose  was  to  "un-cabin"  the  Whigs,  as  the 
Washington  Globe  put  it,  he  was  not  wholly  successful.  The 
Whigs  were  not  ready  to  take  decisive  action  on  a  matter  of 
such  importance  as  the  public  lands;  they  needed  time  to 
shape  their  tariff,  internal  improvements,  and  financial  poli- 
cies before  committing  themselves  on  the  land  policy.  How- 
ever, it  was  no  easy  thing  to  evade  an  issue  formulated  and 
pressed  by  Benton.  Clay  had  always  opposed  pre-emption, 
but  if  such  a  law  was  inevitable,  he  wanted  it  coupled  with 
a  distribution  measure.'  If  a  pre-emption  law  should  be 
enacted  at  this  session  of  Congress,  he  knew  it  would  be 
very  difficult  to  re-open  the  land  question  later.  Further- 
more, Clay  was  not  any  too  friendly  to  the  foreign-bom 
population.  His  speeches  and  correspondence  show  that 
he  believed  that  this  element  of  voters  had  become  so  satu- 
rated with  the  doctrines  of  Andrew  Jackson  that  they  had 
voted  against  the  Whig  ticket  in  the  past  and  could  be  ex- 
pected to  do  so  in  the  future.  It  is  certain  that  a  liberal 
pre-emption  law  was  sure  to  attract  foreigners  to  our  shores. 
For  these  reasons  Clay  came  out  openly  and  led  the  opposi- 

<Dec.  14,  1840.    Ibid..  19,  14,  15. 

•See    Washington    Coir.,   MobUt    Da£fy    Comnurcial    Btgitttr    and 
Patriot,  Jan.  33,  1841;  National  InflUgMtetr,  Fd>.  4.  1841. 


:      '.:  -n 


46         The  Political  Hiitory  of  the  PubUc  Lands 

tion."  He  praised  the  existing  land  system  and  predicted 
that  a  pre-emption  system  would  reduce  the  federal  revenue 
and  be  productive  of  fraud.  He  also  thought  that  the  squat- 
ters could  be  restrained  if  the  government  took  a  firm  stand 
against  them.  He  recommended  that  legislation  of  such  im- 
portance be  delayed  until  the  incoming  of  the  next  adminis- 
tration. 

The  Whig  opposition  was  the  signal  for  a  veritable  tor- 
rent of  abuse  from  the  Democrats.  "The  farce  is  over — 
the  humbuggery  is  finished — the  gourds,  the  coon-skins,  the 
log-cabins,  the  poor  men,  are  all  kicked  to  the  dogs,"  ex- 
claimed the  Wanhington  Glohe.''  "Federalism  has  accom- 
plished its  object,  and  has  returned  to  its  instincts — to  its 
instinctive  hatred  of  the  laboring  man,  and  all  that  con- 
tributes to  aid  and  assist  him  in  the  support  and  advance- 
ment of  his  party.  The  discussion  of  the  pre-emption  bill 
has  done  this — has  uncabincd  the  log  cabin  Federalists,  and 
has  exhibited  the  city  architects  of  these  sylvan  edifices  as 
adding  insult  to  injury — as  adding  injustice  to  mockery — 
and  now  utterly  refusing  the  real  inhabitants  of  the  log 
cabins  in  the  woods  the  small  privilege  of  protecting  their 
homes  from  the  devouring  grasp  of  the  speculator,  with  his 
roll  of  paper  money,  fresh  from  some  privileged  bank.  The 
debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  pre-emption  bill,  from  the  first 
moment,  began  to  uncabin  those  political  cabin-builders 
before  the  election;  and  on  Friday  the  roof  was  pulled  en- 
tirely from  over  their  heads,  and  presented  them  as  they  are 
now,  as  they  have  always  been,  and  as  they  will  forever  be — 
the  deadly  enemies  of  the  laboring  classes.  For  a  while  they 
fought  shy ;  they  skirmished  with  the  bill  without  attackmg 
it  openly;  but  on  Friday  the  reserve  was  laid  by:  a  direct 

*Jan.  6,  1841.    Cong.  Globe,  26  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  86  and  /p.  38-CO. 
'Jan.  11,  1841. 


Diitribution-Pre'etnption  Act  of  18^1 


47 


and  deadly  attack  was  made  upon  the  bill,  led  on  by  Mr. 
Crittenden,  the  friend  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  with  Mr.  Clay'» 
gun.  He  undertook  to  shoot  the  bill  through  the  head  with 
Mr.  Clay's  gun — with  his  big  gun,  called  the  distribution 
bill.  .  .  .  Such  is  the  difference  between  pronuaea  before  the 
election,  and  performance  after — such  the  Federal  chicanery 
practiced  upon  the  people." 


SENATE  VOTE  GIT  CALBOVN'B  CC8SI0N  AHEnDMENT,   JAinTABT  10,   1841 

Immediately  after  Crittenden  had  moved  his  distribution 
amendment  to  the  original  bill,*  Calhoun  offered  his  cession 
bill  as  an  amendment  to  the  amendment.'  The  battle  was 
on  and  the  debate  which  ensued  attracted  the  attention  of 
the  country."  Calhoun  put  forth  his  best  efforts  in  com- 
bating the  arguments  of  his  opponents  and  in  presenting  the 
advantages  of  his  scheme.     "No  man,  probably,  could  have 

•Jan.  8,  1841.  Cong.  Qloht,  86  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  90,  91. 

*lbid.,  91. 

"Wash.  Core,  Dotty  Qtorgiam,  Jan.  81,  1841. 


48 


The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 


i. 


i;l    l# 


made  a  better  speech  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  question,"  ad- 
mitted the  National  Intelligencer}^     Benton  thanked  Crit- 
tenden for  coming  out  so  openly  in  favor  of  restricting  the 
income  of  the  country  and  to  have  recourse  to  a  high  tariff. 
He  deemed  this  the  opening  up  of  the  whole  policy  of  the 
administration."    In  reply  Crittenden  said  that  Benton  was 
welcome  to  draw  any  conclusion  he  wanted,  but  no  special 
significance  was  to  be  drawn  from  it,  as  distribution  had 
been  up  before  the  country  many  times  before  and  had 
passed  both  houses  of  Congress  and  hud  been  vetoed  under 
notorious  circumstances.     The  upshot  of  it  all  was  that 
Crittenden  failed  in  his  purpose  to  couple  distribution  with 
pre-emption    and   Calhoun's    amendment   was   voted   down. 
Benton's  "Log  Cabin  bill"  passed  the  second  of  February, 
with  twenty-six  Democrats  and  five  Whigs  voting  in  the 
affirmative  and  seventeen  Whigs  and  two  Democrats  in  the 
negative.*'    The  House  refused  to  take  up  the  bill  and  when 
the  new  administration  was  ushered  in  the  land  question  was 
as  far  from  settlement  as  ever;  and  that  the  way  to  its 
solution  was  destined  to  be  rocky  had  been  revealed  by  the 
course  of  events  in  the  lower  house. 

When  the  Whigs  nominated  John  Tyler,  of  Virginia,  as 
a  running-mate  for  Harrison  they  made  a  bid  for  the  sup- 
port of  Southern  strict-constructionist  Democrats  who  had 
revolted  against  the  autocratic  rule  of  Andrew  Jackson. 
Had  the  dominant  faction  of  the  Whig  party  been  convinced 
that  they  could  defeat  Van  Buren  without  their  aid,  it  is 
probable  that  they  would  have  nominated  Clay  and  adopted 
a  platform  endorsing  distribution.  At  Harrisburg  the 
Whigs  entered  upon  a  conspiracy  of  silence.     The  leaders 

"Jan.  26,  1841. 

"Jan.  8,  1841.    Cong.  Globe,  26  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  91. 

"Wellington,  Influence  of  the  Public  Landt,  93. 


Dittribution-Pre-emption  Act  of  1841 


49 


of  the  party  hod  foreseen  the  necessity  of  securing  Soutb»»rn 
support  in  order  to  elect  a  majority  in  Congress  opposeu  to 
Van  Bi.ren.  They  had  worked  along  those  lines  for  some 
time.  It  was  expected  that  the  Senate  was  to  be  the  theatre 
«)f  a  close  struggle  between  the  two  parties,  and  also  between 
the  Clay  and  the  anti-Clay  forces.'*  In  Georgia,"  Vir- 
ginia," and  Tennessee  "  the  fight  over  the  senatorial  elec- 
tions was  extremely  close."  Three  prominent  leaders  of 
the  Southern  wing  of  the  Whig  coalition  were  John  Tyler, 
Henry  A.  Wise,  and  William  C.  Rives,  all  of  Virginia,  former 
Democrats,  and  extreme  State  rights  men.  Wise  was  the 
author  of  the  phrase  "The  Union  of  the  Whigs  for  the  sake 
of  the  Union."  In  joining  the  coalition  these  men  had  no 
intention  of  laying  aside  their  well-known  principles.  Tyler 
had  little  in  common  with  the  Northern  Whigs  except  hii 
opposition  to  Van  Buren.  He  had  been  a  consistent  oppo- 
nent of  pre-emption  and  graduation  and  in  18S2  he  had 
voted  against  Clay's  distribution  bill.^'  A  few  weeks  before 
his  nomination  at  Harrisburg  he  had  spoken  in  the  Vir- 
ginia Assembly  in  favor  of  distribution  as  a  means  of 
strengthening  the  finances  of  the  States  and  of  disposing  of 
a  large  surplus,  provided  that  the  land  fund  was  not  needed 
to  support  the  national  credit  in  times  of  embarrassment.'" 

"  Wa$hington  Olobt,  March  37,  1841 ;  Calhoun  to  Clemson,  Jan.  90, 
I84I.    Calhoun'i  Corr«tpond«ne«,  473,  474. 

"The  Floridian,  Not.  88,  1840. 

"North  Carolina  Standard,  March  10,  1840. 

"National  Intelligencer,  July  99,  1843;  Scott,  A  Memoir  of  Hugh 
Law*on  White. 

"See  also  Boeton  AtUu,  Feb.  7,  1840;  Ambler,  Bitehie,  913,  914; 
Hambleton,  H.  A.  Wite;  Clay  to  Brooke,  Dec.  96,  1838,  Colton,  Ck^'e 
Correspondence,  434-436. 

"Tyler,  Tyler,  II.,  134,  136. 

"Ibid.,  II.,  1ST,  188.  In  a  letter  to  Col.  W.  RoWnsra,  dated  Oct. 
17,  1840,  Tyler  wrote  that  he  favored  distribution  and  the  nudntenance 


50         The  Political  Hiatory  of  the  Public  Lands 


"i'f 


I       6 


After   election   both  Wise   and  Rives — the  former  in   the 
House,  the  latter  in  the  Senate — were  strenuous  in  their 
denial  that  distribution  was  a  Whig  measure  and  that  it  had 
been  an  issue  in  the  campaign.'^     Their  "insurgency"  at- 
tracted wide-spread  attention;  it  caused  rejoicing  among 
the  Democrats  and  consternation  in  the  Whig  camp.     In  a 
letter  to  the  Richmond  Whig,^^  written  about  a  month  before 
Harrison's  inauguration,  Wise  protested  that  he  had  not 
changed  his  policies  and  stood  on  the  only  ground  that  could 
be  occupied  by  the  Republican  portion  of  the  Whig  party 
in  Virginia  and  throughout  the  Union.    Although  ths  Rich- 
mond  Whig  ^^  saw  nothing  in  Wisf 's  opposition  to  distribu- 
tion to  "un-Whig"  him,  as  it  was  not  one  of  the  issues  "which 
roused  a  slumbering  people  to  drive  a  corrupt  administra- 
tion from  power,"  yet  it  did  not  profess  to  understand  what 
he  meant  by  the  "Republican  portion  of  the  Whig  party." 
"State  Right  Whigs,"   to  quote   further,   "approve  both 
distribution  and  duties  on  luxuries,  as  wines  and  silks — not 
with  the  object  of  reviving  a  general  system  of  protection, 
but  to  raise  revenue  to  pay  off  the  Van  Buren  debt,  and  meet 
the  necessary  expenses  of  the  government,  and  with  the  fur- 
ther view  of  releasing  the  land  fund  to  the  States,  nearly  all 
of  whom  are  in  debt,  and  ought  to  have  the  money,  and  to 
put  an  end  to  Presidential  trading  in  the  public  lands."  ^* 

of  the  ccHnpromise  tariff  of  1833.  Printed  in  CharU$ton  Courisr,  April 
39,  1841. 

"Wise,  Wite,  66;  Tyler,  Tyltr,  II.,  7,  8;  Wash.  Corr,  Charl0$to% 
Courier,  Feb.  6,  1841 ;  Wash.  Corr.,  Ibid.,  Feb.  1,  1841 ;  North  Caroiina 
Standard,  Feb.  10,  184i«  Mobilt  Daily  Commereial  Begiittr  and 
Patriot,  Dec.  17,  1840;  Wash.  Corr.,  DaHy  B«publiean  Banmer  (Nasln 
viUe),  Feb.  6,  1841. 

"Quoted  in  Bichmond  Enquirer,  Feb.  6,  1841. 

"Quoted  in  National  Intelligtnctr,  Feb.  9,  1841. 

"Cf.  Bichmond  Enquirer,  Feb.  2  and  6,  1841.  This  Democratic  papa 
warmly  approved  Wise's  course. 


i  r^' 


Di$tribution'-Pre~emption  Act  of  1841 


61 


The  Whigs  lacked  a  man  who  could  smooth  over  the  cleav- 
age between  the  rival  groups.  Harrison  was  an  old  man 
who  lacked  political  experience  and  capacity.  Clay's  fol- 
lowers clamored  for  an  extraordinary  session  of  Congress  in 
order  to  profit  at  once  by  their  victory.  The  Southern 
group  saw  what  was  coming  and  fought  it  with  all  their 
might.  When  Harrison  issued  the  call  for  au  early  meeting 
of  Congress,  he  only  hastened  the  inevitable  split  in  his 
party.*'  He  did  not  live  to  see  the  outcome,  for  before 
Congress  convened  he  had  fallen  a  victim  to  the  treacherous 
Washington  climate  and  the  avarice  of  office-seeking  politi- 
cians. His  successor,  Tyler,  though  able  and  sincere,  was 
not  a  man  to  infuse  harmony.  His  entrance  into  the  Execu- 
tive Mansion  was  the  occasion  of  much  speculation  as  to 
what  course  he  would  pursue.  It  was  idle  to  say  that  he 
would  carry  out  the  policy  of  his  predecessor,  because  no 
one  knew  what  that  policy  was ;  and  to  say  that  hi&  accept- 
ance of  the  Whig  nomination  bound  him  to  Clay's  policies, 
when  Clay  himself  had  failed  to  secure  the  nomination  be- 
cause of  opposition  to  his  principles  on  the  part  of  many 
Whigs,  was  equally  absurd. 

The  Whig  papers,  with  few  exceptions,  made  no  mention 
of  his  land  policy,  but  cherished  the  expectation  that  the 
President  would  follow  in  Harrison's  foot-steps.  However, 
there  were  Whigs  who  were  not  a  little  worried  about  the 
new  situation.'"  John  Quincy  Adams  wrote  that  the  influ- 
ence of  Harrison's  death  upon  the  condition  and  history  of 

"Cf.  MohOe  (Ala.)  Comm0rcial  Btgiitw  and  Patriot,  March  29,  1841; 
J.  Q.  Adams,  Memoirt,  X.,  366;  Calhoun  to  Mn.  Clemson,  Feb.  17,  1841. 
Calhoun's  Corr..  474-470. 

'ArkantoM  8tat»  Oazettt  (Little  Rock),  April  98,  1841;  Wash. 
Corr.,  CkarUiton  Couritr,  April  96  am'  May  95,  1841;  Botton  Gouritr, 
April  14,  1841;  Florida  8«ntin4l  (TalUhassee).  June  14,  1841;  J.  Q. 
Adams,  M0moin,  X.,  458. 


62  The  PoUtical  History  of  the  Public  Land$ 

the  country  could  hardly  be  foreseen.*^  Tyler,  in  his  opin- 
ion, was  a  "political  sectarian,  of  the  slave-driving  Vir- 
ginian, Jeffersonian  school,  principled  against  all  improve- 
ment, with  all  the  interests  and  passions  and  vices  of  slavery 
rooted  in  his  moral  and  political  constitution."  These  are 
the  harsh  words  of  a  man  traditionally  hostile  to  Tyler,  but 
they  show  the  distrust  in  which  Tyler  was  held  by  men  of 
his  own  party. 

Democratic  papers,  as  a  rule,  prophesied  a  great  change 
in  the  course  of  the  Whigs  with  Tyler  at  the  helm.^^  The 
very  fact  that  the  Whig  press  was  speculating  on  the  future 
of  their  party  was  to  them  an  indication  of  their  insta- 
bility.*" A  few  papers  expected  the  President  to  be  sub- 
servient to  the  self-appointed  leader  of  the  party,  Henry 

Clay.'*' 

The  figure  of  the  great  Kentucky  statesman  looms  up 
large  in  the  situation.  A  man  of  great  personality,  pride, 
and  imperiousness,  nettled  at  the  treatment  he  had  received 
at  Harrisburg,  he  might  have  played  the  part  of  Major 
Domus  under  Harrison,  but  in  Tyler,  although  of  much  less 
ability  than  himself,  he  found  a  man  whose  prid"  was  equal 
to  his  own  and  who  resented  deeply  the  attempt  to  make 
him  a  rot  fainSant.^^ 

"J.  Q.  Adams,  Memoiri.  X.,  456,  457. 

"Albany  Argu$,  April  9  and  19,  1841;  Moh'de  ComtMrcial  B0gi$t9r 
and  Patriot,  April  19,  1841;  Columbut  (Miss.)  Democrat,  April  84, 
1841;  The  Floridian  (TaUahassee),  May  22,  1841;  Waihington  Globe, 
April  5  and  10,  1841. 

•Albany  Argue,  April  x3,  1841. 

*»CharUeton  Courier,  April  14,  1841;  Hammond,  Silo*  Wright,  234. 

"Wash.  Corn,  Albany  Argue,  June  19  and  August  13,  1841;  Waehr 
ington  Globe,  Dec.  16,  IT,  22  and  26,  1840;  Mobile  Daily  Commercial 
Register  and  Patriot.  Feb.  24,  1841;  Hambleton,  WUe,  XXXII- 
XXXIII;  Clay,  Cloy,  277;  Ambler,  Virginia  and  the  Preeidential  Sue- 
eeetion,  1840-1844,  Turner  Eesay;  167-169. 


DittribiUion-Pre-emption  Act  of  1841 


M 


Tyler's  message  to  Congress  left  no  room  for  doubt  where 
he  stood  on  the  question  of  distribution."  It  declared  for 
a  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public 
lands,  "provided  such  distribution  does  not  force  upon  Con- 
gress the  necessity  of  imposing  upon  commerce  heavier 
burthens  than  those  contemplated  by  the  act  of  18S3.'*  A 
chorus  of  unqualified  approval  from  the  Southern  Whig 
papers  greeted  the  message.  The  National  InUJUgencer,** 
one  of  the  few  organs  which  had  openly  advocated  distribu- 
tion during  the  campaign,  stamped  its  approval.  **It  meets 
the  high  expectations  of  friends  and  blights  the  hopes  of 
enemies,"  said  the  Richmond  Whig**  and  the  New  Orleant 
Bee  ^°  enthusiastically  exclaimed:  **It  is  everything  that  the 
Whigs  can  desire;  everything  that  locofocoism  can  detest.*' 
"The  principle  of  distributing  the  proceeds  of  the  public 
lands,"  it  continued,  ^'receives  the  entire  approval  of  the 
president.  .  .  .  The  only  possible  barrier  to  the  immediate 
operation  of  such  a  law  would  be  tHe  necessity  of  imposing 
heavier  burdens  on  commerce  than  those  contemplated  by 
the  act  of  18dS."  The  Charleston  Courier**  observed  that 
distribution  was  '^openly  and  warmly  reconomended,  but 
under  such  judicious  restrictions  as  will  impose  on  com- 
merce no  greater  burdens  than  are  contemplated  by  the  act 
of  1833."  The  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer,"  on  the 
other  hand,  lamented  the  '*fact  that  neither  the  chartering 
of  a  National  Bank,  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
Public  Domain,  nor  the  passage  of  a  Bankrupt  Law,  are  pre- 
sented as  measures  of  the  Whig  party,  or  its  representative 

"June  1, 1841.    Ridiardson,  If Mfo^M  aiMi  Pap«rt,  IV.,  4T. 

"June  S,  1841. 

"Quoted  in  Biehnumd  Enquirtr,  June  8,  1841. 

"June  5.  1841. 

"June  B,  1841. 

"Quoted  in  AttHtng  Argut,  Juat  8,  1841. 


04         The  Political  Hiitory  of  the  Public  Lands 


V 

i 

M 

1 

m 
111 

in  the  administration,  has  produced  a  feeling  of  disappoint- 
ment among  our  friends — a  fearful  apprehension  that  the 
feelings  and  wishes  of  those  who  have  so  lately  achieved  a 
reform  in  the  government  are  not  fairly  represented  by  the 
successor  of  Gen.  Harrison." 

The  Democratic  editors  professed  to  be  unable  to  arrive 
at  a  correct  understanding  of  the  recommendation  in  the 
message.  Some  saw  in  it  the  same  old  non-committal  Whig 
policy,  and  pronounced  the  sentences  on  distribution  equiv- 
ocal.^* It  was  considered  incongruous  to  advocate  ad- 
herence to  the  tariff  compromise  and  at  the  same  time  to 
recommend  distribution,  with  the  government  hard  pressed 
for  iunds  under  the  present  schedule  of  duties." 

It  mattered  little  to  Clay  and  the  dominant  faction  in  the 
Whig  party  what  the  "Acting  President,"  as  some  of  them 
were  fond  of  calling  him,  recommended.  Soon  after  Con- 
gress had  organized  it  was  evident  that  Clay  was  in  the  sad- 
dle and  that  he  intended  to  drive  his  distribution  measure 
through  even  though  he  might  have  to  ride  rough-shod  over 
the  wishes  of  the  chief  executive.  Scant  consideration  was 
accorded  the  contention  of  the  Southern  members  of  the 
party  that  the  finances  of  the  country  were  in  no  condition 
for  a  law  which  would  subtract  such  a  large  volume  of  reve- 
nue from  the  federal  treasury.***  It  was  L^me  enough  to  at- 
tend to  revenue  and  tariff  bills  after  the  land  question  was 
disposed  of.  "Now  or  never"  was  the  time  to  put  into  effect 
the    "fundamental"    Whig    measure.*^     The    Clay    Whigs 

"Arkaneat  Statt  Oaxtttt  (Little  Rock),  June  S3,  1841}  Mobil*  Com- 
mereial  Rtguter  and  Patriot,  June  9  and  14,  1841  {  CoUimbut  (Hits.) 
Dmoerat,  June  19,  1841;  Richmond  Enquirtr,  June  4,  1841. 

TA«  P^nniylvania,  June  9  and  S,  1841;  Woihington  Olobe,  June  I, 
1841;  Th9  Fhridian  (Tallahassee),  June  19,  1841. 

*»  National  InttUigtnetr,  July  8,  1841. 

"^Ibid.,  Aug.  3,  1841. 


DUtribwtkm-Prg-tmption  Act  of  1841 


00 


brushed  aside  the  charges  of  the  low-tariffites  that  there  was 
a  plot  to  raise  the  tariff**  Their  purpose,  it  was  stated, 
was  not  to  disturb  the  tariff  compromise  but  to  give  a  fixed 
character  to  the  financial  system  so  that  the  government 
could  more  exactly  estimate  its  revenue.*' 

On  the  seventh  of  June  Clay  submitted  to  the  Senate  a 
scheme  of  "fundamental"  Whig  measures.**  Distribution 
occupied  a  prominent  place  but  no  mention  was  made  of  the 
compromise  tariff  of  18S8.  Professor  Wellington  has  shown 
quite  conclusively  that  Cay  and  his  party  regarded  the  dis- 
tribution bill  as  part  of  the  same  financial  system  as  the 
compromise  tariff;*"  but  neither  Clay  nor  his  political  op- 
ponents could  foresee,  at  a  time  when  the  federal  treasury 
was  piling  up  a  hug?  surplus  and  in  all  probability  would 
continue  to  do  so,  that  within  le?s  than  a  decade  the  national 
treasury  would  become  bankrupt  and  would  have  need  of 
every  available  source  of  income.  The  life  of  a  tariff  law 
in  the  United  States  is  no  more  certain  than  the  tenure  of 
power  of  a  political  party.  The  compromise  tariff  was 
enacted  under  unusual  circumstances;  likewise  the  situation 
that  confronted  the  country  in  1841  was  unusual.  Reduced 
to  its  simplest  terms,  the  fight  over  the  distribution  bill  in 
1841  was  a  struggle  between  the  adherents  of  a  high  tariff 
and  a  low  tariff  policy  and  the  debates  in  Congress  show  that 
it  was  so  regarded  by  both  sides. 

The  Democrats  fought  the  bill  mainly  from  the  tariff 


"Cong.  Glob0,  97  Cong.,  1  Seu.,  175;  Charhtton  South0m  Patriot, 
quoted  in  National  IntelKgtneer,  April  1,  1841;  Bichttumd  Bnquinr, 
quoted  in  Ibid.,  May  97,  1B41;  Arkantat  Stat$  GoMttt,  June  9,  1841; 
Senator  Preston's  speech  at  Charleston,  May  99.  National  Int^Utr 
gtnear.  May  99  and  June  1,  1641. 

*  National  tntelligmeer.  May  97,  1841. 

**Cong.  aiobt,  97  Cong.,  1  ScfS.,  99. 

•Wellington.  luflmnet  of  th*  Publie  Lamdi,  44  seq, 


06         The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landi 


^ 


I 


'1; 


standpoint,  but  they  also  injected  the  other  public  land 
propositions  into  the  discussion.  Clay  introduced  his  dis- 
tribution bill  on  June  tenth,*'  and  four  days  later  Robert  J. 
Walker,  Democratic  Senator  from  Mississippi,  introduced 
resolutions  directing  the  committee  on  publiv"  lands  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  reporting  the  bill  with  amend- 
ments providing  for  permanent  prospective  pre-emption,  re- 
duction and  graduation  of  the  price  of  lands  in  favor  of 
settlers  and  cultivators,  and  the  discontinuance  of  distribu- 
tion when  any  import  should  be  raised  above  twenty  per 
cent,  or  the  provisions  of  the  compromise  act  of  1833  vio- 
lated in  any  manner.*^  The  Senate  was  so  evenly  balanced 
on  the  distribution  measure  that  it  was  apparent  to  all  that 
Clay  was  in  for  one  of  the  keenest  struggles  of  his  long  and 
stormy  public  career. 

In  the  House  the  situation  was  quite  different.  Here  dis- 
tribution had  an  absolute  majority  on  condition  that  the 
Western  Whigs  could  be  counted  on.  It  was  important  that 
this  element,  which  represented  about  fifty  votes,  should  be 
kept  in  line.  On  the  protective  tariff  the  Western  Whigs 
were  mainly  favorable,  provided  distribution  was  included 
in  the  program,  but  the  presidential  campaign  had  con- 
vinced them  that  the  feeling  in  their  section  for  a  pre-emp- 
tion law  was  so  strong  that  they  could  not  afford  to  jeopard- 
ize their  political  lives  by  returning  to  their  constituents 
without  reporting  the  enactment  of  such  a  law,  even  if  their 
personal  feelings  were  hostile  or  indifferent.  By  holding  out 
for  a  combined  distribution  and  pre-emption  law,  they  could 
impede  the  progress  of  legislation  and,  if  successful  in  their 
demands,  they  could  point  to  the  sincerity  of  their  cam- 


m 


"Cong.  Globe,  27  Cong.,  1  Scss.,  38. 

"June  14.     Ibid.,  SO.     There  were  in  addition  provbions  of  minor 
importance. 


DittribtUiotirPre-emption  Act  of  18U 


57 


paign  professions.*^ 

While  the  Senate  committee  was  considering  the  land  ques- 
tion, the  chairman  **  of  the  committee  on  public  lands  in  the 
House  reported  a  distribution  bill.'**  The  majority  leaders 
apparently  feared  the  dissatisfaction  among  the  Western 
Whigs,  for  in  the  evening  a  caucus  was  held,"*  on  the  fol- 
lowing day  the  bill  was  recommitted,"'  and  the  next  day  a 
combined  distribution  and  pre-emption  bill  was  reported." 
Although  the  vote  on  the  final  passage  of  this  bill  was  un- 
comfortably close,''*  it  had  comparatively  smooth  sailing  and 
was  sent  to  the  Senate  twelve  days  after  its  introduction." 
There  was  some  opposition  on  the  part  of  representatives 
from  the  old  States  against  the  provisions  giving  ten  per 
cent,  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  lands  to  the  States 
in  which  they  were  situated  and  against  the  donation  of 
400,000  acres  to  the  new  States."     The  bill  must  have  been 

"ArkatuoM  Statt  Gazette  (Uttle  Rock),  Feb.  10,  1841;  Dofly  W»- 
louri  Republican  (St.  Louis),  March  19,  1841;  Hawkey e  and  Iowa 
Patriot  (Burlington),  July  31,  1841;  Waehington  Olobe,  Sept.  S3,  1841. 
On  Jan.  39,  1841,  Senator  Buctianan  predicted  that  distribution  would 
become  a  law  in  combination  with  pre-emption  under  the  new  adminis- 
tration.   Wash.  Corr.,  Charleeton  Courier,  Jan.  85,  1841. 

"William  Ck>8t  Johnson,  of  Maryland. 

"  June  22.    Cong.  Globe,  27  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  89. 

"J.  Q.  Adams,  Memoin,  X.,  486. 

"June  23.    Houte  Journal,  37  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  183. 

"June  24.  Ibid.,  188.  The  bill  is  printed  in  Cong.  Globe,  97  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  156,  157.  After  Dec.  1,  1841,  10%  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands  within  the  limits  of  Ohio,  IlL,  Ala.,  Mo, 
Miss.,  La.,  Ark.,  and  Mich,  was  to  be  paid  to  these  states  respectively. 
After  deducting  expenses,  the  remainder  was  to  be  distributed  among 
the  twenty-sbc  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia.  The  pre-emption 
provisions  were  similar  to  the  bill  which  passed  the  Senate  at  the  last 
session  of  Congress  (See  above).  W.  C  Johnson's  speeches  in  Intro- 
ducing the  bill  are  found  hi  Ibid..  132,  133,  136,  197. 

"116  to  106.    /6<<{.,  37  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  156.  "July  8. 

''/6td.,  37  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  131;  National  IntelUg«ne0r,  July  8»  1841. 


The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Land* 


I  i' 


III' 


particularly  gratifying  to  the  Western  Whiga.  It  silenced 
the  charges  of  their  Democratic  opponents  that  the  Whig 
party  was  the  enemy  of  pre-emption,  and  it  satisfied  their 
constituents  who  demanded  a  share  in  the  land  fund. 

In  the  Senate  the  fate  of  the  bill  was  uncertain  from  the 
day  it  was  introduced.  In  fact,  the  supporters  of  the  bill 
were  on  the  anxious  seat  until  the  President  affixed  his  sig^ 
nature.'^  Every  possible  means  of  defeating  it  was  employed 
and  the  votes  on  the  numerous  amendments  designed  to  de- 
stroy it  were  ominous."  The  Whigs  were  able  to  shake  off 
every  vital  amendment  until  the  question  of  recognizing  the 
validity  of  the  compromise  tariff  came  up  when  the  com- 
bination of  a  select  group  of  Southern  Whigs  and  Democrats 
was  too  much  for  them.  The  motives  of  these  two  groups 
were  different.  The  Democrats  supported  this  amendment 
because  they  felt  certain  that  it  would  kill  the  whole  bill. 
With  the  finances  of  the  government  in  such  deplorable  shape 
a  schedule  of  duties  higher  than  those  of  the  compromise 


I  1 


!■. 


1^^ 


In  the  bill  as  finally  passed  the  number  of  acres  donated  was  500,000 
instead  of  400,000.  Cf.  Th«  P0niuylvankm,  Aug.  16  and  Sept.  8,  1M1{ 
Wash.  Corr.,  Daily  Otorgian,  July  SO,  1841.  These  concessions  to  the 
West  were  no  doubt  insisted  on  by  Western  Whigs  as  the  price  of 
their  support  to  the  bill. 

"  Diary  of  Thomas  Ewing,  Sept  I  and  4,  1841.  Amtriean  HUtorieal 
Btviev,  XVIII.,  105,  109;  Louinillt  Daily  Journal.  Sept  7,  1841;  Wash. 
Corn,  Charletton  Courier,  Aug.  6,  1841;  Cliarletton  Patriot,  quoted  in 
Mobile  Commfrr.al  Btgi$t«r  and  Patriot,  July  16,  1841;  Wash.  Corr., 
Nev>  OrUani  Bee,  July  16  and  38,  1841;  Calhoun  to  Clemson,  Aug.  8, 
1841.  Calhoun's  Correepondence,  486;  Calhoun  to  Clemson,  July  11, 
1841.  Ibid.,  480.  In  the  House  the  Southern  Whigs  had,  with  few  ex- 
ceptions, opposed  it. 

"Cong.  Olobe,  27  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  309,  310,  313,  314,  393,  335,  388; 
Wash.  Corr.,  Charletton  Courier,  Aug.  34,  1841.  The  bill  passed  the 
third  reading  28  to  29  {Cong.  Olobe,  97  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  370;  National 
Intelligencer,  Aug.  34,  1841),  and  Aug.  36  it  passed  by  a  vote  of 
88  to  33.    Cong.  Olobe.  37  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  388. 


I  ,,-   ! 


DiHribuiion-Pre-^mptUm  Act  of  1841 


09 


BSITAn  VOTE  or  Kino's  AMKIf  OMXHT,  AU0T7ST  20,  1841 


■  AFF 

^Taff    Ei>iv,i>«d 


SXNATB  TOTB  OV  BUUBN'B  ▲UIWDXKNT,  AUOUBT  28,  IMl 


60 


The  Political  Hiitory  of  the  Public  Lands 


If 


•m: 


tariff  was  sure  to  be  enacted;  and  if  the  distribution  law 
could  be  made  dependent  on  maintaining  the  tariff  of  1838, 
the  distributionists  would  be  left  in  the  lurch.  Not  being 
able  to  kill  the  bill  by  a  direct  blow,  the  Democrats  would 
give  it  a  lingering  death.  The  Southern  Whigs,  on  the  other 
hand,  cared  nothing  for  pre-emption,  but  they  were  willing 
to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  if 
a  low  tariff  could  be  maintained.  If,  however,  the  choice 
lay  between  distribution  and  a  protective  tariff,  there  could 
be  no  question  about  their  selection.  Moreover,  by  this  time 
Clay  knew  that  John  Tyler  was  not  a  man  of  straw;  al- 
ready he  had  flouted  Clay  with  a  vet  o  of  his  bank  bill.'*  Two 
successful  vetoes  of  "fundamental"  Whig  measures  would  be 
well-nigh  disastrous  to  any  political  party  and  a  body- 
blow  to  Clay's  prestige  and  pride.  Between  a  faction  hold- 
ing the  balance  of  power  and  a  threatened  veto  Clay  was  in 
a  tight  place. 

When  the  proposition  to  suspend  the  operation  of  the  dis- 
tribution law  when  the  rate  of  duties  should  be  above  twenty 
per  cent,  was  first  put  forth  in  the  shape  of  an  amendment  to 
the  distribution  bill,  the  Clay  Whigs  stood  firm  rnd  suc- 
ceeded in  defeating  three  such  amendments.'"    The  vk-ces  on 


i: 


■Augiut  16.  As  early  as  June  11  Clay  wrote  to  Letcher:  "There 
is  reason  to  fear  that  Tyler  will  throw  himself  upon  Calhoun,  Duff, 
Green,  etc.,  and  detach  himself  from  the  Whig  party."  .  .  .  Coleman, 
Crittenden,  I.,  156. 

*  (a)  Woodbury's  amendment,  Aug.  20,  lost  21  to  23.  Cong.  Globe, 
27  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  358.  (b)  King's  amendment,  Aug.  20,  lost  21  to 
27.  Of  the  negative  votes  all  but  three  were  Whigs  and  three  Demo- 
crats (Sturgeon  and  Buchanen,  of  Pa.,  and  Young,  of  Ills.),  while 
the  affirmative  were  all  Democratic  except  5  (Henderson,  Miss.;  Pres- 
ton, S.  C;  Berrien,  Ga.;  Rives  and  Archer,  Va.).  This  vote  shows  the 
precarious  situation.  Buchanan  and  Sturgeon  were  instructed  by  the 
Pennsylvania  Legislature  to  vote  for  the  bill,  but  by  a  twist  of  argu- 
ment they  had  made  it  plain  that  the  provisions  of  the  bill  were  such 


DittributionrPre-emption  Act  of  18U 


61 


these  amendm'.rts,  however,  were  «o  close  that  Clay  saw  the 

handwriting  o.i  the  wall;  he  accepted  defeat  and  when  a 

fourth  amendment  was  presented  enough  Whigs,  including 

Clay,  went  over  and  it  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  twenty-five 

to  eighteen.'* 

that  they  would  vote  against  It  and  still  not  Tiolate  instructions.  (Tht 
Peniuglvanian.  Aug.  16  and  Sept.  9,  1841.)  Young,  of  Ills.,  could  be 
expected  to  vote  negative  on  the  final  passage.  The  5  Whig  votes  in 
the  afBnnative  were  uncertain  on  the  first  passage.  Cong.  aiob0,  91 
Cong.,  1  Sess.,  SS».  (c)  Berrien's  amendment  as  modified  by  Rives, 
Aug.  91,  lost  «0  to  «4.    Cong.  Glob;  87  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  364-368. 

"  Aug.  83.  Cong.  Glob;  87  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  369,  370.  Of  the  aOrauk- 
tive  votes  17  were  Whigs— 9  from  the  South  and  Southwest  (La.,  Oa., 
2  Ky.,  8  N.  C,  Miss.,  S.  C,  Va.){  A  from  the  Middle  region  (N.  Y, 
2  Del.,  8  Md.);  9  from  the  West  (Mich.,  Ind.);  and  1  from  New 
England  (R.  I.).  Every  one  of  these  voted  for  the  bill  on  the  final 
passage,  except  Preston,  of  S.  C.  Of  the  8  Democrats  who  voted  in 
the  affirmative  7  were  from  the  South  and  Southwest  (S.  C,  9  Ala.* 
Ga.,  8  Ark.,  Miss.)  and  1  from  Ohio.  None  of  these  eight  Democrats 
voted  for  the  bill  on  the  final  passage.  Opposed  to  the  amendment 
were  10  Whigs  who  had  consistently  opposed  all  90%  amendments. 
Six  of  these  were  from  New  England  (Me.,  Vt.,  R.  I.,  9  Mass.,  Conn.), 
2  from  the  West  (Mich.,  Ind.),  and  9  from  N.  J.  Every  one  oi  these 
votes  were  cast  for  the  distribution-pre-emption  bilL  Of  the  8  negir 
live  Democratic  votes,  4  had  been  cast  for  King's  amendment  (Ben- 
ton, Mo.,  Linn.,  Mo.,  Tappan,  O.,  Williams,  Me.)  and  3  against  (Stur^ 
geon  and  Buchanan.  Pa.,  Young,  Ills.).  Of  these  4  were  from  the 
West  (Ills.,  O.,  8  Mo.),  3  from  Middle  States  (N.  Y,  9  Pa.)  and 
1  from  Maine.     All  voted  against  the  final  passage. 

The  Democrats  made  the  charge  that  the  Whigs  were  trying  to  con- 
ceal a  "jolter"  in  the  amendment.  {Wathington  Globt,  Aug.  9*,  93, 
24  and  Sept.  21  and  89,  1841;  MobiU  Daily  Comm$reial  Rtgitter  and 
Patriot,  Sept.  1,  1841;  Wash.  Corr.,  PhUadelphia  North  Amtrier^, 
Aug.  25,  1841.)  It  was  alleged  that  King's  amendment  which  was 
rejected  provided  that  when  the  duty  on  any  article  was  raised  above 
20%,  distribution  should  be  suspended,  while  Berrien's  amendment  pro- 
vided that  when  the  tariflF  was  raised  on  all  imported  articles  in  the 
aggregate  beyond  30%  ad  valorem,  distribution  should  be  suspended. 
Berrien  denied  that  this  was  designed  to  offer  a  loop-hole  and  ac- 
cepted Rives's  modification,  which  made  it  substantially  the  same  as 
King's.    The  Waihington  Glob;  Aug.  84>  X841,  also  claimed  that  tte 


i   i 


6t         The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Land* 

Although  called  a  **compromi8e,*'  the  adoption  of  the 
twenty  per  cent,  proviso  was  a  distinct  defeat  for  the  Claj 
Whigs.  It  proved  to  be  fatal;  it  served  notice  that  they 
might  choose  between  a  high  tariff  and  distribution,  but  both 
they  could  not  have.  "This  provision  met  with  grave  ob- 
jection from  some  friends  to  the  principle  of  the  bill,"  said 
the  National  Intelligencer,  **  "and  its  adoption  must  be  con' 
sidered  a  concession,  for  the  sake  of  harmony,  such  as  men 
associated  in  a  great  and  good  cause  must  make  when  neces- 
sary. Nothing  can  exceed  the  patience,  perseverance,  and 
wariness  with  which  the  Whigs  of  the  Senate  have  sustained 
this  bill  through  many  days  of  trying  and  exhausting  con- 
test, during  which  the  yeas  and  nays  on  proposed  amend- 
ments, etc.,  have  been  taken  about  eighty  times." 

Even  with  the  twenty  per  cent,  proviso  it  is  doubtful 
whether  the  distribution  bill  could  have  passed  without  the 
aid  of  log-rolling.  In  the  South  "  and  Southwest  **  and  in 
certain  regions  of  the  West***  very  great  pressure  was 
exerted  on  congressmen  to  secure  the  enactment  of  a  bank- 
rupt law.  This  measure  was  not  a  part  of  Clay's  program* 
but  it  was  earnestly  favored  by  such  men  as  Senator  Hender- 

higfa  tariff  aenaton,  except  Clay  and  two  or  three  others,  who  voted 
for  it,  voted  against  the  90%  proviso  so  that  they  could  consistently 
vote  for  its  repeal  at  the  next  session. 

"Aug.  M,  IMI. 

"CharUtton  Courier,  June  11,  July  98,  97,  98,  and  August  3,  IMI. 

**8outhtm  ahMd  (Helena,  Ark.),  Aug.  90^  I84I  and  Feb.  A,  1849| 
DttUif  Uitiouri  Bepubliean,  Aug.  9,  1841 1  Daily  Republican  Banner 
(Nashville),  Aug.  3,  1841;  Louitville  Daily  Journal,  June  15  and  July 
8,  1841;  iV«to  Orleane  Bee,  Aug.  3,  1841;  Miitiitippi  Free  Trader  and 
Natchez  Weekly  Oazette,  June  4  and  Dec  31,  1840;  The  Mieeieeippiait 
(Jaclcson),  Jan.  6,  1843. 

"  Hawkey e  and  louta  Patriot  (Burlington),  Feb.  3,  1849;  Oreen  Bety 
(Wis.)  Republican,  Feb.  19,  1849;  NiUe  (Mich.)  Republican,  Jan.  97, 
1849;  N.  Y.  American,  quoted  in  Mobile  Regieter  and  Journal,  Jan.  96, 
1849. 


Diftrilmtion-Prt-tmption  Act  of  1841  H 

son,  of  MisaiNippi,  Berrien,  of  Georgia,  Tallmadge,  of  New 
York,  Whigs,  and  Walker,  of  Miisitiippi,  a  Democrat. 
There  were  enough  Whigs  who  insisted  upon  this  bill  to 
hold  up  the  land  bill.  While  the  distribution  bill  was  in  the 
Senate,  as  a  warning  to  those  senators  who  were  impeding 
its  progress,  the  opponents  of  the  bankrupt  bill  in  the 
House  succeeded  in  laying  it  on  the  table.  This  brought 
matters  to  a  head,  and,  after  a  caucus,  the  House  recon- 
sidered its  action  and  passed  the  bill ;"  the  recalcitrant  sena- 


SENATI  VOra  OK   DISTSnunOM-PBl-IVPnOM  BILL,  ATJSU8T  28,   1841 


tors  ceased  their  opposition  to  the  distribution  bill;  and  in 
a  short  time  both  bills  went  to  the  President.*^ 

"By  a  majority  of  8. 

"National  IntMifftnetr,  August  U  and  18,  1841;  Woihington  OMn, 
Aug.  18,  1841;  Ibid.,  quoted  in  North  Carolina  Standard.  March  18, 
1849;  Wash.  Corr.,  CharUtton  Courior,  July  99,  August  18,  91,  93  and 
38,  1841;  Wash.  Corr.,  Ntw  Orltam  B—,  Aug.  SO,  1841;  /Md..  Aug.  97, 
1841;  Biekmond  Whig,  Aug.  91,  1841;  Tho  Maditoniam,  July  97.  1841; 


!  ? 


fii 


64  TA«  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

The  accompanying  maps  show  that  the  real  sectional  fight 
was  over  the  twenty  per  cent,  proviso.  Not  a  single  one 
of  the  twenty-eight  affirmative  votes  on  the  final  passage  of 
the  bill  "*  were  Democrats,"^  and  but  one  Whig  ^"  was  found 
among  the  negatives.'^     It  was  a  strict  party  vote. 

With  the  exception  of  the  twenty  per  cent,  proviso,  the 
distribution-pre-emption  bill  became  a  law  in  substantially 
the  same  form  that  it  was  introduced  in  the  House.'*  It  pro- 
vided that  after  December  31,  1841,  ten  per  cent,  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  within  the  limits  of 
Ohio,  Indiana,  lUinois,  Alabama,  Missouri,  Mississippi, 
Louisiana,  Arkansas,  and  Michigan  should  be  paid  to  those 
States.  After  deducting  this  amount  plus  the  expenses  of 
survey,  administration,  and  sale,  the  remainder  of  the  pro- 
ceeds was  to  be  divided  between  the  twenty-six  States,  the 
District  of  Columbia,  and  the  Territories  of  Iowa,  Wiscon- 
sin, and  Florida  according  to  their  respective  federal  repre- 
sentative population.  These  net  proceeds  were  to  be  paid  at 
the  treasury  on  January  1  and  July  1  of  each  year,  and  the 
State  legislatures,  or,  if  they  failed  to  do  so,  the  governors 
were  to  appoint  agents  to  receive  them.    Distribution  should 

lainoit  Republican  (Shawneetown),  Oct.  29,  1842;  Cong.  Olob;  9n 
Cong.,  1  Sess.,  348,  356;  Benton,  VieiB,  II.,  229-234;  Tyler,  TyUr,  II., 
151.  The  National  Inttlligeneer  (Aug.  18,  1841)  frankly  stated  that  the 
bankrupt  bill  was  not  claimed  as  a  Whig  measure  but  it  was  deemed 
necessary  to  the  general  success  of  the  Whig  system  of  measures.  See 
also  Wellington,  Influence  of  the  Public  Land*.  99,  100. 

"Cong.  Globe,  27  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  388.  Aug.  26,  1841.  The  Senate 
amendments,  including  the  20%  proviso,  were  accepted  in  the  main 
by  the  House.  Cong.  Olobe,  27  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  406,  407;  Wash.  Corr., 
Richmond  Whig,  August  28  and  30,  1841;  Wash.  Corr.,  Charleatou 
Courier,  Sept.  3,  1841. 

•8  N.  E.,  5  Middle  States,  4  West,  11  South  and  Southwest 

"Preston,  S.  C. 

"i  N.  E.,  3  Middle,  4  West.  19  South  and  Southwest. 

^Statutee  at  Large,  V.,  453-458. 


Dittribution-Pre-emption  Act  of  1841 


66 


be  suspended  during  the  continuance  of  war  "  and  in  case 
duties  were  levied  above  20%  ad  valorem  on  any  or  all  im- 
ports. In  addition  to  the  ten  per  cent,  bonus,  Ohio,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Alabama,  Missouri,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Arkan- 
sas, and  Michigan  were  granted  600,000  acres  of  public 
lands  within  their  limits.''*  The  right  of  pre-emption  to  a 
tract  of  surveyed  land  not  exceeding  160  acres  was  granted 
to  heads  of  families,  widows,  and  single  men  over  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  who  were  citizens  or  had  declared  their  inten- 
tion of  becoming  citizens,  on  condition  that  they  would 
erect  a  dwelling  and  cultivate  the  land.  The  right  of  pre- 
emption was  denied  to  those  who  had  abandoned  their  own 
land  in  the  same  State  or  Territory,  who  owned  320  acres  of 
land,  or  who  had  already  taken  advantage  of  the  law. 

"During  the  Mexican  War  the  question  arose  whether  or  not  the 
provisions  of  tlie  pre-emption  act  were  suspended.  It  appears  that 
the  United  States  District  Judge  for  tiisiana  had  so  decided.  The 
case  was  discussed  at  a  meeting  of  Pi  ^Ident  Polk's  cabhiet,  Jan.  99, 
1848,  when  it  was  decided  that  the  agent  in  Louisiana  should  be  in- 
structed to  abandon  all  prosecutions  based  on  the  alleged  suspension 
of  the  ri^t  of  pre-emption,  and  that  Congress  should  be  eaCed  on 
to  pass  an  explanatory  act  Quaife  (ed.),  Tkt  Diary  of  Jamaa  K.  Polk, 
III.,  S19.  Two  days  later  (Jan.  SI,  1848)  Representative  Harmanson, 
of  Louisiana,  one  of  the  men  who  had  called  Polk's  attention  to  the 
matter,  moved  that  the  committee  on  public  lands  should  inquire  into 
the  subject  and  to  recommend  remedies,  if  necessary,  but  the  resolu- 
tion was  voted  down.     Cong.  Olob;  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  968. 

"In  the  debate  on  Clay's  resolutions  in  the  Senate  in  the  following 
session  of  Congress  (see  below)  the  question  arose  whether  the  sus- 
pension of  distribution  would  repeal  this  part  of  the  act  Clay  denied 
that  this  grant  to  the  new  States  was  independent  of  the  distribution 
measure.  Senator  Younf^  of  Illinois,  insisted  that  the  grants  having 
once  been  made  could  not  be  revoked.  What  would  be  the  consequence, 
he  inquired,  if  a  State  had  selected  her  500,000  acres  and  during  five 
years  had  made  deeds  to  settlers  of  9AO,000  acres  which  thereby  became 
located  and  settled  f  Cong.  Olobt,  97  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  SM,  8T1.  Ite 
question  caused  some  worry  in  the  new  SUtes.  See  Domovrutk  Frt» 
Pru$  (Detroit).  April  18,  1840. 


Jl 


Hi 


i 

CHAPTER  rV 

THE  SENTIMENT  OF  THE  COUNTEY  ON  THE  DISTKIBUTION-PEB- 

EMFTION    LAW 

SPEAKING  in  the  large,  the  West  was  the  only  section 
of  the  country  which  was  satisfied  with  the  distribution- 
pre-emption  law.  A  few  Eastern  Whigs  did  swallow  the 
morsel  without  making  wry  f aces,^  and  some  found  consola- 
tion in  the  hope  that  a  few  months'  trial  of  distribution 
would  prove  so  successful  that  former  skeptics  would  join 
with  distributionists  in  repealing  the  obnoxious  amendment.' 
But  it  is  evident  that  there  was  profound  disappointment  and 
no  effort  was  made  to  conceal  it.  The  Baltimore  American  • 
said  with  truth  that  the  proviso  well-nigh  plucked  the  heart 
out  of  the  bill.  The  Boston  Atlas  *  admitted  that  the  East 
could  go  along  without  a  national  bank  and  distribution, 
but  must  have  a  protective  tariff.  Berrien's  amendment,  it 
declared,  "is  meant  to  confirm  and  perpetuate  principles 
contained  in  the  compromise  act,  in  its  worst  construction. 
It  is  intended  to  recognize  the  obligatory  nature  of  that  act, 
when  it  was  expressly  avowed  by  all  its  advocates  at  the 

»The  National  Int$llig«ne0r  (Sq)t  18,  1841)  caUed  It  "the  great 
meuuie  of  the  session"  and  commended  the  pre-emption  feature  as 

weU. 

•Wash.  Corr.,  Nmt  OrUaiu  Bt;  Sept  S,  1841;  Botton  AtUu,  Aug. 
SO,  1841;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  quoted  in  Att>any  Argut,  Sept  1(^ 
1841;  Whig  meeting  at  Albany,  Albany  Argnt,  Sept  7,  1841;  Th»  Mad' 
tionkm.  Sept  T,  1841.  • 

*Sept  «,  1841. 

*Sept  8,  1841. 

M 


The  Sentiment  of  the  Country 


67 


time  of  its  passage  that  it  was  not  so."  .  .  .  The  prophetic 
words  of  the  Botton  Courier^  are  even  stronger:  "To  the 
distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  and  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  distribution  has  been  advocated,  we  yield 
assent ;  but  to  the  proviso  which  presents  an  insuperable  bar 
to  the  revision  of  the  tariff,  and  bribes  the  Western  States 
to  submit  to  the  odious  'compromise,'  we  enter  our  protest. 
Perhaps  we  stand  alone  on  this  point.  But  some,  who  now 
approve,  may  possibly  be  on  the  other  side  of  the  question 
before  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  Congress.  Stranger 
things  than  that  have  happened.  We  presume  that  Presi- 
dent Tyler  was  not  troubled  with  any  conscientious  scruples 
when  he  signed  the  bill.  What  enemy  to  the  American  sys- 
tem could  wish  for  a  better  weapon  wherewith  to  defend  him- 
self against  the  importunities  of  protectionists?"  • 

The  Eastern  Whigs  knew  that  Tyler  and  the  Southern 
Whigs  had  placed  their  senators  in  a  dilemma  where  there 
was  absolutely  no  alternative  except  to  vote  against  the  land 
bill  or  else  to  repudiate  protection.'  The  choice  ha'/ng 
been  made,  to  undo  it  involved  the  possibility,  even  piob- 
ability,  of  a  split  between  the  distributionists  and  protec- 
tionists. 

Probably  a  majority  of  the  Southern  Whigs  were  recon- 
ciled to  a  distribution  law  provided  a  high  tariff  was  not 
eeded.     For  this  reason  many  who  had  opposed  Clay*s 
measure  were  disposed  to  give  the  new  law  a  fair  trial.'    Had 

■Sept  8,  1841. 

•Cf.  Battimon  AmtHeam,  Sept  6,  ISilt  AJbanf  Bvmd^g  Jomrml, 
quoted  in  National  InUtHgtuetr,  Oct  9.  1841. 

^Do$t<m  AtUu.  August  85  and  87,  1841;  Wash.  Corr.,  Bo$Um  Oomrimr, 
Aug.  98, 1841;  Journal  of  Oonmoreo  (N.  Y.).  quoted  in  Bottom  ComHor, 
Sept.  4.  1841;  Wash.  Corr.,  Charlotton  Courior,  Aug.  M,  1841. 

•CoImii6m  (Ga.)  BnftOrtr,  Sept  »,  1841;  OkarlfUm  CowrUr^Btf*' 
7.  1841(  Biehmond  Whig,  Sept  7,  IMlf  Pmlig  Botmbltem 


68         The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Land* 


'  -i- 


III 


11 

1*- 


the  condition  of  the  treasury  warranted  it  and  the  Clay 
Whigs  desired  it,  so  that  the  tariff  could  have  remained  on 
a  twenty  per  cent,  basis,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  dis- 
tribution might  have  become  popular  in  the  South,  if  for  no 
other  reason  than  because  it  might  have  prevented  the  enact- 
ment of  liberal  Western  land  laws,  such  as  the  homestead 
law. 

The  Southern  Democratic  leaders  at  once  launched  a 
systematic  campaign  to  repeal  this  "unjust,  unwise,  and 
unconstitutional"  law  '  which  was  too  "iniquitous  to  remain 
on  the  statutes."  ***  South  Carolina  took  action  at  once 
By  an  overwhelming  vote  the  Legislature  refused  to  accept 
her  share  of  the  fund,  and  enjoined  the  Governor  not  to 
appoint  an  agent  to  receive  it.^*  In  North  Carolina  n« 
action  was  taken  by  the  Legislature,  but  the  law  was  de- 
nounced at  a  number  of  Democratic  meetings.*'  Missis 
sippi  '*  and  Alabama**  took  action  similar  to  South  Caro- 

(Nashville),  Sept.  99,  1841;  Governor  Letcher's  message  to  Kentucky 
Legislature^  The  Comfnonwealth  (Frankfort,  Ky.),  Jan.  4,  1849;  Gov. 
Jones's  message  to  Tennessee  Legislature,  Doily  Rtp^lietm  Bamisr, 
Oct.  90,  1841. 

'Richmond   Whig,  quoted  In  National  Int»lligtne0r,  Nov.  S(^  1841. 

'* Albany  DaUy  Advertiser.  quoteO  In  Ibid.,  Dec  7  1841;  Ibid.,  Dee. 
T,  1841;  Ibid.,  Oct.  5,  1841;  Cf.  Washington  Olobe,  quoted  in  Biek- 
mond  Enquirer,  Nor.  19,  1841. 

"flouM  Eseecutive  Documents,  97  Cong.,  i  Seas.,  Doc.  No.  101;  Cong. 
Olobe,  97  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  913;  House  Journal,  97  Cong.,  9  Seas.,  S94; 
National  Intelligencer,  March  6,  1849;  Richmond  Enquirer,  Dec.  18, 
1841;  Colvmbia  South  Carolinian,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  Dec.  7,  1841;  Charles- 
ton Mercury,  quoted  in  J '-id.,  Nov.  19,  1841;  Calhoun  to  Burt,  Nor. 
98,  1841.     Calhoun's  Correspondence,  495,  496. 

**  North  Carolina  Standard,  Hec.  8,  IS,  99,  and  29,  1841;  Jan.  5  and 
10,  Feb.  16,  May  18,  and  Sept  98,  1849. 

"Cong.  Globe,  97  Cong.,  9  Seas.,  4M;  Richmond  Enquirer,  April  I. 
1849.  In  Mississippi  the  question  of  accepting  tlie  land  fund  hung 
fire  a  long  time.  In  1848,  on  the  eve  of  the  presidential  campaign,  an 
effort  was  made  in  the  legislature  to  accept  the  State's  share  and 


The  Sentiment  of  the  Country  09 

Una,  and  in  Georgia,  although  the  Legislature  condemned  the 
law,"  the  financial  condilions  of  the  State  were  such  that  the 
Governor  a  few  months  later  appointed  an  agent  to  receive 
her  share.*'  The  friends  of  education  and  internal  improve- 
ments in  Virginia  made  a  great  effort  to  have  that  State 
accept  her  share,*^  and  when  the  Legislature,  in  March, 

1848,  refi'-ed,"  the  question  was  made  an  issue  in  the  State 
election  ■  d  that  spring.*^  In  spite  of  the  appeal  made  to 
the  Western  part  of  the  State  where  the  railroad  agitation 
was  strong,  the  Whigs  were  decisively  defeated.^ 

the  House  of  Representatives  voted  to  do  so  bjr  AS  to  S5  (FA.  9, 
IMS).  The  Senate,  however,  rejected  it  (Feb.  11).  Some  Democrats 
were  in  favor  of  the  resolution.  Th^  argued  that  in  voting  for  the 
resolution  they  did  not  abandon  hostility  to  the  principle,  since  distribu- 
tion was  no  longer  a  remote  possibility.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
in  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  lower  house  a  proviso  was  added 
declaring  that  the  distribution  act  of  1841  was  of  doubtful  constito- 
tionality.  See  files  of  Tlu  MittiitippiaH  (Jackson)  for  Feb.,  1846, 
especially  Feb.  11,  18  and  96. 

**Cong.  aioh;  97  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  159;  Hou$t  Journal,  97  Cong.,  9 
Sess..  395,  396 1  Biehmond  Enquirtr,  Nov.  SO  and  Dec.  14,  1841. 

*  Richmond  Bnquiror,  Nov.  30  and  Dec.  18,  1841. 

"NatwnuU  Int»lUg«netr,  July  91   and   93,   1849. 

"  Ritchie  to  Calhoun,  Nov.  94,  1841.  CoMotm'f  Com$pond«ne0,  837- 
841. 

"Message  of  Gov.  Rutherford,  Richmond  Whig.  Dec.  17,  1841;  IIML, 
March  10,  I849|  Biehmond  Enqntnr,  March  8,  1849;  National  Jntol' 
Ufftne^r,  March  19,  1849;  NiUt'  BtgiMttr,  LXII.,  39. 

''Biehmond  Whig,  March  LS,  18,  99  and  95,  1849;  Wineh-tt  Bo- 
publican,  quoted  in  lUd.,  March  95,  1849;  P»ttr$bnrg  Statotman,  quoted 
Ui  Ibid.,  March  98,  1849;  Kanawha  BepnbKean,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  Mardi 
36,  1849;  Lewington  Gaxette,  Wkushtttr  RtpnbHeam,  and  CharMtto- 
vUlo  Adnoeatt,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  April  19,  1849;  Lgnehbwg  VirgMmm, 
quoted  in  DaU^  RapnbUean  Banner,  March  95,  1849. 

^Lynehbnrg  Virginian,  quoted  in  Richmond  Enqnirtt,  March  5,  1849; 
Ibid.,  April  1  and  May  6.  1849;  Richmond  Whig,  May  9,  4»  5,  etc, 

1849.  In  18U,  the  Virginia  House  of  Delegates  adopted,  by  a  largr 
majority,  a  resolution  directing  the  State  treasurer  to  receive  her  shanw 
but  as  late  as  1850  Senator  R.  M.  T.  Hunter  proudly  m^ntm^fif^  |b 


Ill 


70         The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

It  was  the  hope  of  the  Southern  agitators  that  if  enough 
States  rejected  their  shares,  coupled  with  the  impoverished 
condition  of  the  treasury,  they  could  "blow  the  whole  scheme 
sky-high."**     Their  hopes  were  raised  by  the  action  of 
several  States  outside  of  the  South  and  Southwest.     In 
Maryland,  where  distribution  had  been  a  head-liner  for  the 
Whig  campaign  documents,  the  Whig  ticket  headed  by  Wil- 
liam Cost  Johnson,  an  ardent  supporter  of  the  scheme,  was 
defeated  shortly  after  the  enactment  of  the  distribution 
law.*'     The  committee  on  public  lands  in  the  New  York 
Legislature,  in  a  report  signed  by  every  member  but  one,  de- 
nounced the  law."     The  Legislature  of  Maine  instructed  her 
senators  to  vote  for  the  repeal  of  the  distribution  law  and  the 
land  fund  was  rejected."     New  Hampshire  followed  suit." 

the  Senate  that  Virginia  had  never  accepted  it  NiU$'  Btjfiittr, 
LXVII,  240  (Dec.  14,  1844);  Cong.  Olobt,  SI  Cong,  1  Sess,  878,  8TS. 
(AprU  30,  1840.) 

'^  Richmond   Enquinr,   March    26,    1842;    Cf.   MobiU    BtgUttr   and 
Journal,  Dec.  4,  1841. 

■  Weuhington  Olob;  quoted  in  Richmond  EnqnWar,  Oct.  12,  1841. 

'Albany  Argui.  April  6,  1842;  Nilt^  Rtgiitn,  LXII,  80;  Ithaea 
Journal  and  Stntca  FalU  Couritr.  quoted  In  Nationtd  Inttlligeneer, 
Dec  7,  1841;  Albany  Argnt,  Aug.  8,  1841.  Cf.  Cen«ure  of  South  Caro- 
lina's action,  Albany  Evening  Journal,  quoted  in  National  InttlUgtnetr, 
March  1,  1842;  Gov.  Seward's  Message,  Feb.  23,  1842,  Seward's  Worki, 
II,  414;  National  JnfUigenctr,  March  1,  1842.  In  1844  the  question 
of  accepting  the  land  fund  was  before  the  LeglsUture,  but  It  was 
rejected,  largely  due  to  the  influence  of  Van  Buren,  according  to  the 
Albany  correspondent  of  the  N«y>  York  W-kly  Tribun*.  See  issues  for 
March  9  and   16,  1844. 

'Houit  Executive  Documtnti,  27  Cong.,  2  Sess,  Doc.  No.  172; 
Richmond  Enquirer,  AprU  8.  1842.  In  his  message  of  1844  Ck»v.  An- 
derson sUted  that  "the  poUcy  of  distribuUon  U  fully  repudiated  by 
both  government  and  people,"  and  left  it  to  the  Legislature  to  decide 
whether  or  not  to  accept  its  share.    Nileif  Register,  LXV,  340. 

"In  1844  the  New  Hampshire  Legblature  adopted  resoluUona  con- 
demning distribution  and  refusing  to  receive  the  land  fund.  Richmond 
Enquirer,  July  8,  1844. 


The  Sentiment  of  the  Country 


71 


In  both  Pennsylvania  '*  and  Connecticut  '^  the  matter  hung 
fire  for  some  time. 

The  new  law  had  several  features  which  recommended  it 
to  the  West,  and  especially  to  the  newer  portions.  In  Iowa 
Territory  the  grant  of  500,000  acres  to  new  States  was  con- 
sidered an  inducement  to  form  a  State  government,  as  well 
as  the  increased  federal  ratio  which  would  follow  admission." 
This  advantage  was  discounted,  however,  by  those  who 
feared  that  the  old  States,  in  order  to  keep  down  the  number 
of  shares,  would  make  admission  difficult,  and  that  hereafter 
Congress  would  be  niggardly  in  appropriations  for  the 
West."  The  Democratic  Governor  of  Illinois  refused  to 
appoint  an  agent  to  receive  the  land  fund  and  referred  the 
question  to  the  Legislature  which  decided  to  accept." 

The  pre-emption  law  seems  to  have  attracted  but  little 
attention  anywhere  except  in  the  West.     It  elicited  very 

"Philadelphia  Nortk  Amnietm,  June  98,  1848. 

"  Vm  Bw»n  Pap»r$,  469.    Smith  to  Van  Buren,  Maf  99,  1843. 

"Hawktyt  and  Iowa  Patriot  (Burlington),  March  4,  June  94,  Julj 
15  and  99,  Aug.  19  and  19,  Sq>t  19,  and  Oct.  7,  1841 1  Message  of 
Gov.  Chambers  to  Iowa  Territorial  Assembly,  Dec.  8,  1841.  Riehmumd 
Enquirtr,  Jan.  IS,  1849.  Gov.  Doty,  of  Wisconsin  Territory,  recom- 
mended statehood.    OrMn  Bag  (Wis.)  R^fubUean,  Dec.  9ft,  1841. 

'Hwokty  amd  Iowa  Patriot  (Burlington),  Nov.  95,  1841;  Mimtn^ 
ExprMt,  quoted  In  IMd.,  Nov.  4,  1841;  Burlington  Oaz«tt0,  quoted  In 
Ibid.,  Sept  9,  1841;  Ort0n  Bay  (Wis.)  R*pabUean,  Oct  90,  1841. 

"AffMrft  mod*  to  iko  Benatt  and  Homo  of  Rtprottntatioot  of 
IllinoU,  13th  General  Ass.,  I.,  3-19  (Dec.  7,  1849);  Cf.  Report  of 
Committee  on  Finance,  Ibid.,  I,  97-109  (Jan.  90,  1843) ;  Ptoria  R0fitt*r 
and  North-WetUm  Oaztttor,  July  10,  93  and  30,  1841;  IlUnoit  B«p«&- 
lican  (Shawneetown),  Dec.  17,  1849  and  Jan.  98,  1843.  For  sentiment 
in  Ohio,  Michigan  and  Illinois,  see  ChUUeotko  Adv»rti$or,  quoted  in 
Richmond  Bnquiror,  Dec.  3,  1841;  Ibid..  Feb.  1,  1849;  OJUo  Btatt$mam 
(Columbus),  Sept.  10,  1841;  BfringfUld  RtfublieoH,  quoted  in  IWd^ 
Aug.  97,  1841;  NiUa  (Mich.)  Republican,  Sept  16.  1841;  DomMruOa 
Fr$t  Prws  (Detroit),  Dec.  1ft,  1841;  Doliy  Miuowi  Btfubttta*  (St 
Louis),  July  90,  184L 


7f         The  Political  History  of  the  PvbUc  Lands 

little  praise  or  condemnation.  The  reason  probably  is  that 
all  sections  and  parties  were  reconciled  to  it  as  a  measure 
of  political  necessity.  The  West  received  it  not  as  an  act 
of  kindness  on  the  part  of  Congress,  but  as  a  duty  rather 
reluctantly  performed.  The  pioneers  were  not  easily  satis- 
fied and  immediately  their  representatives  clamored  for 
greater  liberality.  Amendments  were  introduced  extending 
the  right  of  pre-emption  to  all  unsurveyed  land,  mineral 
lands  and  smaller  tracts,  and  extending  the  time  for  pay- 
ment."^ The  primary  object  of  a  pre-emption  law  was  to 
protect  the  settler  from  the  speculator,  and  in  a  way  this 
was  accomplished  by  the  act  of  1841.  But  it  did  not  go  far 
enough.  Speculators  might  still  purchase  as  much  land  as 
they  desired,  providing  they  did  not  infringe  on  a  settler's 
pre-emption  right.  The  pioneer  West  wanted  a  pre-emption 
law  which  would  blot  out  all  speculation  by  reserving  all 
public  lands  for  actual  settlers.  Here  pre-emption  dovetails 
into  the  homestead  idea  which  by  1850  had  captivated  the 
West. 

'^Hawk«y0  aitd  lova  Patriot,  Feb.  S,  1849;  Mi»n«$ota  Piotutr  (St 
Paul),  May  11,  1854j  MiuouH  BepubHean  (St  Louis),  July  14,  18«4| 
Th0  Oregon  Stattiman  (Salem),  June  «,  1844;  Cong.  Olob;  97  Omg., 
9  SeM.,  300,  304.  351,  359;  Ibid..  98  Cong^  9  Seas.,  919;  Ibid.,  99  Cong, 
1  Seas.,  108,  454;  Ibid..  30  Cong,  1  Sesa,  13,  984;  Ibid.,  30  Cong,  9 
Seaa,  9fl;  Ibid.,  33  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  711-715;  Btnatt  MiietUanMu$  Doeth- 
m0nt$.  30  Cong,  9  Sesa,  Doc  No.  39;  M.  Bien,  Th»  Public  Land  of  tk* 
United  State*.  North  Amtriean  Beviev  (July,  1910),  CXCII,  8»»,  ^96. 
In  1853  and  1854  the  right  of  pre-emption  on  unsurreyed  lands  was 
extended  to  a  number  of  the  states  and  afterward  by  act  of  June  9, 
1869,  to  all  unsurveyed  lands.  The  pre-emption  act  remained  in  force 
untU  March  3,  1891. 


It 
■mn 

ll 


CHAPTER  V 

TTLEb'b  TABIFT  vetoes  AMD  THE  KTBUC  IJOVM  ^ 

WHEN  Congress  convened  in  December,  1841,  the  out- 
look for  the  Whigs  was  anything  but  hopeful.  The 
State  elections  had  quite  generally  gone  against  them,'  the 
credit  of  the  national  and  State  governments  was  at  a  very 
low  ebb,*  and  the  party  was  torn  by  dissension  and  strife. 
By  the  twenty  per  cent,  proviso  the  land  question  had  been 
securely  engrafted  onto  the  tariff  and  the  inevitable  dis- 
cussion of  the  finances  was  sure  to  open  the  wounds  which 
had  been  inflicted  at  the  last  session.* 

Taking  advantage  of  these  conditions,  the  Democrats 
began  a  general  assault  on  the  Whig  measures  of  the  pre- 
vious sessions."  The  action  of  the  State  legislatures  in  re- 
fusing their  shares  of  the  land  fund  was  flung  in  the  faces  of 


>  WeUington'i  Influtne0  of  tJu  Public  Land$  (pp.  I04-11S)  gives 
some  interesting  and  valuable  information  aboat  the  erenta  narrated 
in  this  chapter. 

'Of  seven  States  which  had  cast  their  electoral  votes  for  Harrison 
the  Democrats  carried  five  (Vt,  Tenn.,  Ala.,  Me.,  and  Md.). 

'The  federal  treasury  was  empty  and  the  loan  which  had  been  au- 
thoriaed  at  the  special  session  had  not  been  subscribed.  See  Wash. 
Corr.,  CharlMton  CourUr,  Dec.  SI,  IMl. 

*  Calhoun  to  Clemson,  Jan.  83,  1843.  CaOkonii'*  Corr.,  509,  A08;  Cal- 
houn to  Hammond,  Feb.  4,  1849.  Ibid.,  504;  Calhoun  to  Duff  Green, 
April  9,  1849.  Ibid.,  507;  Calhoun  to  Clemson,  AprU  3,  1849.  Ibid., 
506,  500. 

»C<mff.  aiob*,  97  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  90,  99,  93,  99-43,  59,  64,  137,  145, 
155;  Wash.  Corr.,  Ckarlttton  Courier,  Jan.  19!,  Fdb.  n,  and  April  4^ 
1849;  Eidmoud  Whig,  AprU  4,  1844. 

79 


,t 


74         The  Political  History  of  ihg  PubUe  Landi 

the  distributionists.*  Gay  met  these  tactics  by  the  intro- 
duction of  a  resolution  instructing  the  committee  on  public 
lands  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  providing  by  law 
that  whenever  a  State  declined  to  receive  its  share  it  should 
be  distributed  among  the  remainder  of  the  States/  A  f"  y 
days  later  the  Whigs,  spurred  on  by  Clay,  made  it  clear 
that  instead  of  harboring  any  intention  of  repealing  the 
distribution  act  they  were  determined  to  undo  the  bad  bar- 
gain they  had  made  and  to  put  their  favorite  measure  on 
such  a  firm  foundation  that  it  would  not  be  endangered  every 
time  the  tariff  question  was  taken  up.  With  this  end  in  view, 
Clay,  on  the  15th  of  February,  boldly  submitted  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Senate  a  series  of  resolutions  which,  among 
other  things,  declared  that  the  condition  of  the  government's 
finances  made  a  rate  of  duties  above  20%  necessary  and 
that  the  twenty  per  cent,  proviso  of  the  distribution  act 
ought  to  be  repealed.'  The  Whigs  frankly  stated  that  they 
had  assenced  to  the  proviso  solely  because  it  was  the 
only  means  of  passing  the  bill,  and  the  fact  of  its  being  in- 
serted by  the  enemies  of  the  bill  put  them  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  respect  it.»  From  the  time  of  their  introduction 
until  the  veteran  Kentucky  statesman  delivered  his  famous 
valedictory  on  March  SI,  these  resolutions,  in  one  form  or 
another,  were  vigorously  and  sharply  debated.** 

While  this  struggle  was  being  waged  President  Tyler 
threw  a  Parthian  shaft  into  the  Clay  camp  in  the  form  of 

'Cong.  atob».  set  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  159. 

'Jan.  91  and  Feb.  8.  1849.    Ibid.,  lO.  917. 

*Co*g.  Glob;  97  Cong.,  9  Seas.,  935;  Schun,  Clay,  II.,  994;  Tyler, 
Tglor,  II.,  161. 

•Clay's  speech  at  Lexington,  April  10,  1849.  National  Int0llifftneor, 
May  IS,  1843;  Ibid.,  Feb.  99  and  March  99.  1849.  Cong.  Olobt,  97 
Cong.,  9  Sesa.,  816,  636. 

"National  Inttlligtnetr,  Feb.  99,  1849;  Cong.  Olobo,  97  Ctmg.,  f 
Scaa.,  300.  310,  316,  399,  393,  397.  33A.  347,  348,  371,  S7S. 


TyUr'i  Tariff  Vttott 


15 


a  special  meisage  recommending  the  fuipention  of  diatribu- 
tion  until  the  condition  of  the  treasury  made  it  advisable. 
In  substance,  Tyler  said  that  when  the  distribution  bill  was 
passed  there  was  reason  to  anticipate  that  there  would  be  a 
surplus  to  distribute,  but  now  the  treasury  was  facing  a 
deficit  and  a  loan  was  necessary.  In  order  to  insure  the  sub- 
scription of  the  loan,  the  President  reeommended  that  the 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands  should  be  pledged  for  the 
payment  of  the  interest  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
authorized  to  apply  ^11  over  that  amount  to  the  gradual 
extinction  of  the  principal.^^  The  message  was  a  notice 
to  the  Whig  leaders  that  the  President  would  sign  no  bill 
repealing  the  lariff  proviso  in  the  distribution  UlL^' 

At  once  the  Clay  press  in  all  sections  of  the  country 
pounced  upon  the  message  as  a  declaration  for  the  repeal 
of  ♦*the  vital  Whig  measure."  *•    It  was  almost  the  unani- 

>*Marehg5,  1849.  RidMrdioiw  ir«M<vM  oimI  P«|Mrt,  IV,  lOB-Ua 
"Wiae  in  Bm0u  D»Mdt$  (p.  906)  sajrs  that  lyier  «w  after 
regretted  his  approral  of  tlw  land  bili  of  1841.  It  seems  quite  prab- 
able  tliat  Tjrler  signed  the  bill  against  his  better  Judgment,  not  wishing 
to  put  tlw  stamp  of  disapproral  upon  every  measure  passed  at  the 
special  session.  (Cf.  Webster  to  Ketefaum,  Aug.  99;  1841.  Webster's 
Prit)at4  Comtpondiket,  ed.  by  Fletcher  Wdwter,  p.  109.)  Howerer. 
in  tlie  interval  between  the  close  ot  tiie  special  siwiion  and  the  be- 
ginning of  the  next  he  saw  that  the  dominant  faction  of  the  Whigs 
had  repudiated  him,  and  from  that  time  he  made  no  effort  to  ooo- 
cUiate  the  Clay  men.  Tk»  Ifadifonjaii,  a  pro-1>ler  paper,  comment- 
ing on  the  message  (issues  of  March  98  and  April  19,  1840)  said  the 
President  willingly  gave  his  approval  to  the  distribation  law,  and  it 
was  not  until  an  entire  change  in  prospects  had  talun  place,  involv- 
ing possibilities  of  war,  and  a  dishonor  of  national  ocdit,  that  Us 
advisers  proposed  to  suspend  the  operation  of  distrlbntlOB.  If  Coo- 
greas  had  done  its  duty,  it  continued,  and  adopted  measures  of  relief 
offered  t>y  tlie  President  and  his  advisers,  such  as  tlie  exchequer,  or  same 
other  practical  plan  of  relief,  the  Stotes  would  not  have  been  deprived 
of  tiie  benefits  of  the  law. 
''NatUmal  IiUtWgmut,  Mardi  9^  1840. 


m 


m 


\ 


■i  ! 


i,  ■ 

Ml 

e! 


76         The  PoUtical  History  of  the  Public^  Ltrnde 

tnout  opinion  that  luapcniion  would  amount  to  a  practical 
repeal.'*  The  Bo$ton  AtUu^^  and  the  Bo$ton  Courier** 
rejoiced  in  the  prospect  of  the  removal  of  the  obatacle  to 
a  protective  tariff  which  was  of  more  importance  than  the 
land  fund.  The  Peoria  (Ills.)  Register  and  North-Westem 
Gazetter  "  was  one  of  the  few  Western  papers  to  praise  the 
message.  It  was  content  to  lose  a  national  bank  and  to  give 
up  the  land  fund  for  a  tariff  which  would  furnish  a  market 
in  the  United  States  for  Illinois  wheat  and  pork.  The  Rich- 
mond Whig**  declared  that  the  message  removed  the  last 
barrier  between  Tyler  and  the  "Loco-Foco**  party,  and 
judging  by  the  praise  which  it  elicited  from  the  Democratic 
editors,  the  statement  seemed  plausible.^* 

By  this  message  Tyler  delivered  a  heavy  blow  to  the  Qay 
Whigs.  They  played  a  waiting  game  until  they  deemed  tl» 
opportunity  had  come  to  meet  the  opposition  of  the  Presi- 
dent. According  to  the  compromise  tariff  of  188S  duties 
would  touch  the  low  water  mark  of  S0%  on  the  last  day  of 
June,  and  some  even  maintained  that  after  that  date  no 

"Waikimgton  Gloht.  IntUptndtnt,  AUmamdria  Omttte,  PhUaddpliU 
North  Amtriean,  Philadtlpkia  Sintkul,  PubUe  Ltdgtr,  BuUkmort  OHp- 
ptr,  quoted  in  National  InttlUgoneor,  March  31.  1840;  Lpukbwrf  Vhr- 
ffinian,  quoted  in  Bkhmond  Whig,  April  ft,  1849;  IbkL,  March  98  and 
99,  1849;  Daily  Btpublican  Baniur  (NashviUe),  April  6,  1849;  Wash. 
Corr.,  Charlttton  Couritr,  March  31,  1849;  Philadelphia  North  Amtneam, 
March  98  and  31,  1849;  Ntwark  (N.  J.)  Dailg  Advorti$or.  March  98» 
1849;  Bahimort  Anuricam,  March  98,  1849. 

«  March  99,  1849. 

>*  March  99,  1849. 

"April  8,  1849. 

"AprU  I,  1849. 

"Democratic  Free  Preie  (Detrdt.  Mich.),  April  8,  1849;  The  Pew 
aytvanian,  March  98,  1849;  Waehington  Globe,  March  95,  1849;  Arkannu 
State  Oaxette,  AprU  13,  1849.  BtUtimore  Sum  (Independent),  March 
98,  1849,  and  the  Native  American  Bulletin  (St  Louis)  (Native  Amer- 
ican), April  18,  1849,  aim  indorsed  the  message. 


T^*$  TaHff  r0to*$ 


rt 


duties  at  all  could  be  collected  unleu  authoriied  by  a  new 
l«w-**  In  'pite  of  the  urgent  need  of  revenue  and  the  prompt- 
ing of  the  President,  the  Whigs  made  no  effort  to  expedite 
the  enactment  of  a  tariff  law  which  would  yield  sufficient 
revenue.  They  continued  to  bide  their  time  until  the  10th  of 
June  when  they  believed  Tyler  had  no  means  of  escape.  On 
that  day  Millard  Fillmore,  chairman  of  the  committee  on 
ways  and  means,  moved  to  postpone  the  considerati«>n  of  the 
tariff  bill  which  had  been  slumbering  in  committee  and  to 
take  up  in  lieu  a  provisional  bill,  or,  as  it  was  called,  the 
"Little  Tariff '» "  This  bUl  provided  that  the  rate  of  duties 
in  force  June  1st  should  continue  until  August  1st,  and  that 
the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands 
should  not  be  suspended  even  though  duties  remained  above 
twenty  per  cent."  This,  of  course,  set  aside  two  compro- 
mises, that  of  1888  and  1841.  This  action  was  nothing  more 
or  less  than  an  attempt  to  rush  the  opposition  off  its  feet 
and  the  Democrats  and  anti-distributionists  became  ex- 
tremely angry  .*• 

"GarriMHi,   Wutward  Bmttmkm,  189. 

*  Cong.  Olobt.  97  Cong.,  9  Sen.,  615. 

"The  second  instailment  of  the  hnd  fund  wu  to  be  paid  Jaly  1st 
and  this  would  have  been  suspended  had  not  the  proriaion  for  the 
continuance  of  the  operation  of  the  act  of  Sept  4,  IMl,  been  in- 
serted. 

-Cong.  Glob;  9T  Cwig.,  9  Sess^  «W,  •!«.  For  Fillmore'i  rather 
feeble  defenae  see  bis  speed),  June  15,  1849.  Ibid.,  636.  The  lyier 
organ,  TU  MadUonUtn  (June  18,  18*9),  declared  that  the  "denijnidc 
plan"  to  crush  the  President  was  concocted  and  determined  upm  by 
tlie  Dictator  [Clay]  himself.  Seven  long  months  'have  rolled  by,  said 
this  paper,  and  Congress  has  done  nothing— nothing  but  to  erect  a  ma- 
chine to  torture  the  President  And  now  the  daj  approaches.  Four- 
teen days  more  and  there  will  be  no  means  of  collecting  the  revenue 
and  the  sums  arising  from  the  public  lands  mm$t  be  distributed.  After 
yielding  implicit  rfjedlcncc  to  the  mandate  of  the  ZHet&tor,  baring  ro- 
maioed  idle  seven  nooths,  the  ultra  Whig  Congress  frames  a  bill 


78         The  Political  Hittory  of  the  PubUe  Landt 


!  ; 


Hi 

I      f    5 


s  J- 


■•:l 


if: 


!;■ 


The  Whigs  offered  no  apology  for  their  determination  to 
repeal  the  20%  amendment,  which  they  said  had  been  foisted 
upon  them  in  such  a  manner  that  it  deserved  no  respect.'* 
There  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  the  point  made  by 
Senator  Evans,  of  Maine,  that  the  proviso  couM  not  be  con- 
sidered a  compromise  when  the  opponents  of  distribution 
stood  pledged  to  repeal  the  whole  act  when  the  opportunity 
presented  itself." 


SUTATS  rvn  ov  "uttlb  tautt"  bill,  jum  24,  1842 

The  "Little  Tariff"  passed  the  House,  after  a  number  of 
attempts  to  kill  the  distribution  proviso  had  been  voted 

of  twelve  lines  in  Tiolation  of  the  compromise  act,  and  like  •  band  of 
cold-blooded  inquisitors,  resolves  to  bind  the  President  upon  their 
infernal  wheel— apply  the  engine  torture— and  olTer  him  no  other  al- 
ternative but  instant  recantation  or  political  death.  If  the  Dictator 
doubts  the  President's  iMrvs  let  him  proceed  with  his  machinatlonSi 
The  President  can  appeal  to  the  people,  etc.,  etc 

*•  Comg.  atobt,  97  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  <1«.  017. 

'Ibid.,  M*. 


Tyler*$  Tariff  Vgtoet 


ft 


down,««  by  116  to  108,  five  dsyi  after  iti  introduction." 
In  the  Senate  i:et  m  most  determined  roiatance,**  Imt  it 
emerged  June  "•  substantially  intact  except  that  the  pay- 
ment of  the  se :  .J  instalhnent  of  the  land  fund  was  to  be 
postponed  until  August  Ist"  After  much  confusion  and 
heated  words  the  House  concurred  in  this  amendment  •»  and 
the  bill  went  to  meet  the  inevitable  at  the  White  House. 

While  the  bill  was  before  Congress  rumors  were  rife  that 
the  President  would  veto  it.  Tyler  had,  no  doubt,  made 
known  his  intention  to  his  intimate  friends,  but  if  he  had 
not,  his  views  were  sufficiently  known  to  warrant  the  belief 
that  he  would  refuse  to  affix  his  signature.  The  Whig  ma- 
jority, no  doubt,  believed  that  they  would  be  able  to  "head 
Captain  Tyler,"  »«  whom  they  hoped  would  not  dare  to  veto 
the  measure  with,  an  empty  treasury  before  him.  Then,  too 
it  was  thought  that  a  veto  would  hold  together  the  Whigs, 
who  if  they  had  nothing  else  in  common,  could  certainly 
drink  a  toast  to  the  downfaU  of  "His  Accidency"  whose 
course  had  endangered  the  safety  of  every  measure  m  the 
Whig  catalogue."  Although  Clay  had  left  the  halls  of 
Congress,  his  lieutenants  had  been  instructed  to  give  no 
quarter  to  Tyler.  The  great  Kentuckian  could  not  allow  the 
President  to  take  every  point.  A  general  surrender  with- 
out a  show  of  fight  would  ahnost  wreck  his  prestige  and  his 

'Ibid.,  8S8,  887. 

"June  lA.    IbUL,  «ST. 

'Ibid.,  638.  609.  876,  «78,  e7». 

"By  •  Tote  of  M  to  W.    Ibid.,  e7». 

'Ibid.,  919. 

"JuneM.    /6M.,  «87,  688. 

'Riehmomd  Whig,  June  16  and  «1,  16M{  Warii.  Corr.,  MoMU  IU§- 
i»t,r  amd  Journal,  July  ♦,  1848t  Wub.  Corr,  ChtrlMton  Cowtor,  June 
U,  as,  and  97, 1840{  Philadelphia  yortk  Amtriemt,  June  97,  1840;  WMh- 
ington  Olobt,  June  18,  1849|  Tkt  MadtmUtm,  June  18,  1840. 

'Biekmumd  Wkip,  June  IS  vnd  July  6,  1840. 


I   I  i 


The  Political  Hitiory  of  the  Public  Ltmdt 


Hi 

II 


party*!.'* 

However,  Tyler's  predicament  was  not  so  bad  as  might 
be  supposed.  First,  he  had  nothing  either  to  gain  or  to  lose 
by  signing  or  vetoing  the  bill,  because  between  him  and  the 
Whig  majority  there  was  a  great  gulf  fixed.*"  Second,  his 
Attorney  General  had  advised  him  that  duties  mi|^t  be 
levied  under  the  compromise  act  after  July  1st;**  but  sup> 
posing  that  they  could  not,  Congress  was  as  responsible  as 
he  for  the  maintenance  of  the  government.  Finally,  the  close 
votes  on  the  bill  had  shown  him  that  he,  too,  could  play  the 
game  of  waiting,  for  the  defection  of  a  few  voUiS  would  turn 
the  situation  to  his  advantage. 

The  veto  came  the  day  before  the  twenty  per  cent,  rate 
of  duties  was  scheduled  to  go  into  effect.*^  The  message 
stated  that  the  bill  violated  the  acts  of  1888  and  1841  by 
suspending  the  first  and  rendering  for  a  time  the  last  in- 
operative; and  to  abandon  the  distribution  compromise  for 
a  short  period  was  to  open  the  way  for  its  total  abandon- 
ment. 

Throughout  the  storm  of  invective  and  abuse  which  fol- 
lowed Tyler  stood  firm."     In  the  House  the  message  was 

"CUj  to  Crittenden,  July  16.  1849.  Tylet,  T^kr,  lU  lUt  Jodfe 
Stoiy  to  aay,  Aug.  S,  1849.  Colton,  PWrol*  Com$fo»d0ne$  of  Clef, 
467;  Calhoun  to  A.  P.  Cidhoun,  April  S,  1849.  CoMoim'*  Corrtftmi' 
0net.  All,  «19.  Dtntoeratie  B«vUw,  XI.,  906;  Oomg.  Globe,  9T  Caa#. 
9  Seu.,  9«7,  9M. 

*7k«  Madieonian,  July   18,   1849. 

"Von  HoUt,  HUtory  of  tlu  V.  S.,  lU  4M,  45A. 

"  June  99,  1849.    Rldutrdaon,  Meuagot  a»d  Papert.  IV.,  180-18S. 

"Tyler  to  Harris  et  ai.  July  9,  1849.  "For  having  declined  of 
late  to  unite  in  giving  away  a  fruitful  MMirce  of  revenue,  from  a 
Treasury  whicli  has  become  nearly  exhausted,  I  have  been  charged  witti 
a  desire  to  d'ctate  to  Congress,  when  my  sole  object  is  to  carry  oat 
a  law  of  this  very  Congress  on  the  subject  of  the  puUic  lands.  Hm 
welkin  is  nuuie  to  resound  with  charges  of  executive  dictation,  becsese 
I  have  not  seen  cause  to  approve  the  repeal  or  suspension  of  an  act 


Ti^a  Tariff  Vtton 


received  with  mixed  surpriae  and  anger."^  The  Whig  prcM 
was  very  general  in  condemnation.  Tyler  was  brandul  a 
traitor  and  renegade  to  Whig  principles  and  to  his  own 
previous  opinions.  Nothing  could  be  more  unexpected,  said 
the  Nationdl  InteUtgencer,*^  because  pains  had  oeen  taken, 
by  amendment  and  qualification,  to  shape  the  bill  so  as  to 
avoid  encountering  a  veto.  A  New  York  editor  *^  mourned 
that  the  President  had  forestalled  Con/^ress  in  its  att^npt 
to  reconcile  the  East  and  West.  The  opposition  press  was 
jubilant  and  defended  the  President  on  every  count.*' 

It  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  bill  would  fail  to 
pass  over  the  veto,  but  the  Clay  Whigs,  beside  themselves 
with  rage,  began  fanew  the  game  of  ''heading  Captain  Tyler.*' 
Smarting  under  the  lash  of  two  aefeats  at  the  hands  of  the 
President — that  of  the  20%  proviso  and  ^ut  v«to  of  the 
•*Little  Tariff*' — the  thought  of  complete  surrender  was  un- 
bearable. The  struggle  now  involved  the  question  of  the  in- 
dependence of  Congress.*"    The  same  day  the  'lattle  Tariff" 

psMed  M  kte  u  the  4tk  of  Sept  kwt  My  rc^  is,  ttiA  if  it  wu 
right  to  pass  that  act  then,  it  amat  lie  wmag  to  r^eal  it  naw,  wlien  tlw 
Treaaurj  requires  tlie  uac  tff  eferjr  dollar  wfaidi  it  ci«  rightfullf 
claim."  lyicr,  TjfUr,  II.,  ITI.  Also  priatad  in  NwManal  l«M%«MMr, 
Julf  li;  IMS. 

''C9»§.  aiab;  9r  Cooff..  9  Sess..  aM-«T,  700b  TOI,  TOT,  TM,  713,  TSi 
•eq. 

"June  M,  1848. 

"Conriar  amd  MmfmlMr,  quoted  in  Nmttanat  HtMgmtmr,  July  lo, 
1849. 

"Natiomal  InttlUgtmcw,  July  5.  1849;  Bottom  Cowriar,  Jafy  3.  1849t 
NatiM  AmtricM  B^lUtiH  (St  Louis),  Jutf  11,  1848|  NUm  (Midi.) 
Republiemm,  July  95,  1849;  Dtmoeratie  Fr*»  Pr—$  (Dalntt,  Mich.), 
July  IS,  1849;  MobOt  R«gi»t*r  md  Jowwal.  July  8,  ISM;  mMmoitd 
Enqmirmr,  Jiily  5,  1849. 

"Crittenden's  speedi,  Auf.  1,  1840.  Co»§.  OMf,  97  Conf-  9  Seas., 
890,   891. 


8S         Tht  PoUtical  History  of  the  Public  Landt 


failed  to  pass  over  the  veto/^  the  House  leaders  gave  iratiee 
that  they  would  take  up  a  permanent  tariff,  or  the  "Great 
TariflT'  bill,  as  it  was  called."  This  bill  involved  a  total 
repeal  of  the  20  7©  proviso.  Twelve  days  later  it  passed  by 
a  majority  of  four  votes — not  a  comfortable  margin.*'  After 
running  the  usual  gauntlet  of  amendments,*^  the  bill  passed 
the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  £5  to  23  *^  with  the  distribution 
feature  intact.  The  House  concurred  in  the  Senate  amend- 
ments and  the  bill  went  to  the  President  with  the  hope  of 
the  National  Intelligencer  *"  that  the  Giver  of  all  Good  might 
"incline  his  heart  to  wisdom." 

On  the  9th  of  August,  three  days  later,  the  appearance  of 
the  President's  secretary  below  the  bar  of  the  House  was 
the  signal  for  a  scramble  for  seats  in  the  gallery  and  a  rush 
of  representatives  into  the  chamber.'"  The  President's  mes- 
sage announced  that  he  withheld  his  approval  from  the  bill 
because  it  increased  duties  above  twenty  per  cent,  and  pro- 
vided for  an  unconditional  distribution  of  the  land  proceeds, 
thereby  uniting  two  wholly  incongruous  elements — and  mak- 
ing the  fate  of  one  dependent  upon  the  other."* 

The  knowledge  that  the  President  had  foiled  them  the 
third  time  was  the  last  straw  for  the  hij^  tariff  men,  but  they 
could  only  give  vent  to  their  wrath  by  the  appointment  of 
a  select  committee  to  consider  the  message.    The  majority 

**July4.    Vote  114  to  97.    Conjr.  Otoft*,  87  Cong.,  8  Sess,  717,  718. 

•Ibid..  717. 

"July  16.    Ibid..  769. 

"Ibid.,  772,  790,  795,  801-803,  807,  819-893,  897,  899. 

-  August  5.    Ibid..  869. 

"August  6,  1849. 

"Cong.   Olob;   97   Cong.,   2   Sess.,  866-868. 

•>  hichardson,  Mt$iag»$  and  PafMri,  IV.,  183-189.  Tyler  had  sub- 
mitted  the  message  to  Secretary  Webster  who  declared  that  the  ob- 
jections to  the  bill  were  well  taken,  but  wished  he  would  sign  the  bill 
in  the  awful  state  of  the  country.  Webster  to  Tyler,  Aug.  6,  1849. 
Van  Tyne,  Wtbtttr't  L»U«r$,  974,  975. 


TyUr^t  Tariff  Vrtott  9$ 

report  read  by  John  Quincy  Adami,  chairman,  was  a  scath- 
ing arraignment  of  the  President,  but  it  was  mostly  cam- 
paign thunder."*  The  distributionists  were  defeated  and  they 
knew  it ;  they  had  been  "headed"  and  not  the  •*Captain.*'  It 
was  all  very  well  to  talk  about  adjourning  without  passing 
a  tariff  bill  and  allowing  the  goTemment  to  get  along  as 
best  it  could,"  but  it  was  another  matter  to  go  before  the 


_  lAFF 
C2NEC, 

\hfr 


igsiviSCD 


»yec»  S/voT  *'cT/.v., 


BBfrATK  TOTB  ON  DUTWCBUTIOIV  VOX,  ATTOUST  29,   1842 

country  in  the  autumn  elections  with  the  Uriff  question  un- 
settled and  the  finances  of  the  country  in  chaos."*  Accord- 
ingly, a  ta  -Jf^  bill  independent  of  the  distribution  clause  was 

"Report  of  the  Select  Committee.  Augiut  18,  1849.  Majority 
Report.  Cttns.  aiob0.  ar  Cong.,  »  Sew.,  8B4-8M.  Minority  Reports, 
Ibid.,  aeU-Wl.  Cf.  aUo  IbUL,  878-87»,  8T7,  889,  883.  WW;  Rkhsrdwn, 
MttMogf  and  Paptn.  IV..  190-19S;  National  InttUigtnetr.  Aug.  18 
and  18,  184«;  Richmond  ^nqn^r,  Aug.  l«,  1848. 

"National  Int4lUgtne0r.  Sept.  7  and  31.  184«;  Cong.  Ohbt.  91  Cong., 
9  Seas.,  801,  805,  810,  817,  91»{  Ptok^  «M«qr»  Sittorieal  and  LUmwf, 

**Boii  on  Cvmior,  Aug.  17,  1848. 


M         The  Political  Hittory  of  the  Public  Land* 

paBaed."  The  feeble  attempt  to  unite  the  two  was  imoth' 
ered,  but  in  order  to  **saTe  their  facet,"  a  separate  bill  re- 
pealing the  twenty  per  cent,  proviso  was  passed."'  This  wa« 
disposed  of  by  a  "pocket"  veto."' 

President  Tyler  was  not  in  a  position  where  he  could  piay 
the  part  of  a  constructive  statesman.  During  the  first  t>vo 
years  of  his  administration  there  were  several  parties  or 
factions  represented  in  Congress.  There  were  Southern 
Whigs,  Eastern  Whigs,  and  Western  Whigs,  and  among  the 
Democrats  there  were  "Regulars,"  State  Rights  Democrats, 
former  Conservative  Democrats,  typified  in  Tallmadge  and 
Rives,  besides  sectional  groups.  In  such  a  situation  no 
President  could  carry  through  a  positive  policy,  but  by 
watching  every  comer  he  might  at  least  pursue  u  dignified 
negative  course,  and  this  is  what  Tyler  attempted  to  do. 
He  knew  that  the  Eastern  and  Western  Whigs  could  expect 
no  support  from  the  Democrats  and  the  Southern  Whigs  on 
the  tariff,  and  between  the  hi^h  tariff  Eastern  men  and  the 
distributionist  Westerners  there  was  no  doubt  that  the 
former  would  ultimately  have  their  way.  The  only  real 
strong  bonds  of  union  between  the  Eastern  and  Western 
wing  of  the  party  was  a  certain  harmony  Iwtween  protection 
and  distribution  and  tl\c  superb  leadership  of  Henry  Clay. 
Although  there  were  no  long  distance  telephones  in  those 
days,  the  distinguished  resident  of  Ashland  dominated  the 
situation.**      Many   Whigs    blindly    voted    for   the    "Great 

"Cong,  aiobt,  Sn  Cong.,  2  Sess..  884,  904,  9\i,  923,  926,  949-960, 
963,  9«4,  973. 

"Vote  In  House  92  to  84.  Aug.  26,  1842.  Ihid..  27  Cong.,  2  Sess., 
948,  949.    Vote  In  Senate  33  to  19.    Aug.  29,  1842.    tbid.,  962. 

"  Tyler  sent  a  messags  to  Congress  at  the  next  session  in  which 
he  gave  his  reasons  for  the  veto.  Dec.  14,  1842.  Richardson,  Me$$agei 
and  Papert.  IV.,  254,  256. 

"J.  Q.  Adams,  Mtmoirt,  XI..  236;  Clay  to  Crittenden,  July  21,  184«. 
Coleman,  Life  of  Critttnden,  I.,  190. 


T}fUr'$  Tariff  Vetoea  tf 

TariiF,**  not  having  the  least  idea  what  picture  the  master 
operator  would  throw  on  the  screen  if  a  veto  should  coroe. 
In  fact,  there  is  some  ground  for  the  charge  that  the  Gay 
Whigs  had  no  desire  to  settle  the  tarilF  question,  but  to  play 
the  game  of  ''heading  Captain  Tyler*'  and  to  lay  their  wires 
for  1844."*  Some  very  probably  believed  that  Tyler  wouM 
sign  the  second  bill  but  calm  consideration  ought  to  have 
convinced  the  leaders  that  a  veto  was  inevitable. 

The  safest  assertion  is  that  party  pressure  dictated  the 
course  of  the  Whig  leaders.  The  overwhelming  sentiment  of 
NVw  En^and  Whigs  and  a  comfortable  majority  of 
Eastern  Whigs  in  general  were  m  favor  of  laying  down  their 
arms  at  the  feet  of  the  "Captain"  and  passing  a  separate 
tariff  ImII  except  for  the  fact  that  they  stood  in  need  of 
Western  Whigs  votes  to  carry  such  a  measure."*  It  is  true 
that  there  was  a  strong  sentiment  in  the  Northwest  in  1842 
in  favor  of  protection  for  raw  materials  and  infant  indus- 
tries,** yet  if  it  had  to  forego  the  benefits  of  either  distribu- 

"iV<i«<M  AmtrietM  BulUtlm  (St  Ixmis).  Aug.  17.  I848(  Th4  MaM- 
tomkm,  July  8  and  Aug.  19,  1S40{  MobUt  Rtgittw  and  /onraol,  July 
18,  1849;  NOt  (Mich.)  R«^lie<m.  Aug.  18,  184«i  Biehmond  Bmqt^nr, 
Aug.  9,  18i9;  Wash.  Corr.,  Ckarhttou  CourUr,  July  8,  9,  Aug.  10  and 
17,  1840;  Wash.  Corr.,  ifMc  York  Vuiom,  quoted  in  Bottom  UourUr, 
Aug.  11,  18411;  H.  A.  Wiie  to  Constituents,  Sq>t.  16,  1849,  in  Natiomat 
Inttlligtnetr.  Sept  94,  1849;  WaihimgUM  Olobt.' Aug.  A,  1849.  WaalL 
Corr.,  Boston  Evoning  MtreautOt  Journal,  Aug.  6,  1840. 

-Now  York  Emfrtu,  quoted  in  TU  MadUonim,  July  90,  1849;  At- 
hany  Journal,  quoted  in  Albamif  Argnt,  March  90, 1848;  BotUm  Oourimr, 
July  93  and  August  5,  11,  IS  and  10,  1849;  NonAwn/fort  Hnald,  quotacl 
in  Boston  Conritr,  Aug.  6,  1849;  BoHon  Atlat,  March  19  and  June  lA, 
1849;  Newark  DmUy  AdoortUor,  July  IS  and  Aug.  11,  1849;  Boftoa 
Adv»rti»0r,  Now  York  Amtriean,  N.  Y.  Joitmat  of  Cammtreo,  PkUa- 
delpkia  Ev*ning  Journal,  quoted  in  Riehmoud  Bnqmkror,  Aug.  9S,  1849; 
Bates  to  Webster.  July  10,  1849,  Van  Tyne,  ll'«6«(sr'«  Lott»r$,  979; 
J.  Q.  Adams'i  Memoin,  Aug.  4,  1849,  XI..  M7,  988;  Cf.  Conf.  Otobo, 
27  Cong..  9  Sess..  618,  617,  698,  690,  964. 

"Taussig.  Tko   Tarif  Uittory  of  ikt   UuUad  8taU»  (5  ed.  N.  T, 


86         Tht  PoUtical  Hiitory  of  tht  PMie  Ltmd$ 

tion  or  protection,  it  would  have  given  up  the  Utter.*'  In 
the  West  diitribution  was  desired  for  its  own  sake  with 
protection  an  adjunct;  in  the  East  protection  was  tht  meas- 
ure with  distribution  a  welcome  companion  because  it  gave 
greater  stability  to  the  federal  revenue,**  disposed  of  a 
threatened  surplus,  and  was  in  the  nature  of  a  guarantee 
against  the  appropriation  by  Western  States  of  the  puUic 
lands.**  Distribution  and  protection  went  hand  in  hand 
and  the  one  could  not  be  abandoned  without  disappointment 
to  a  large  number  of  its  friends.  The  two  great  wings  of 
the  Whig  majority  needed  mutual  help  and  for  the  sake  of 
the  party  had  to  put  on  a  bold  front.** 

The  Whig  party  went  to  pieces  on  the  public  land  ques- 
tion. The  master  helmsman  Henry  Clay  could  not  steer  the 
political  craft  amidst  the  angry  blasts  of  sectionalism.  He 
encountered  serious  obstacles  in  the  national  bank  and  the 
bankrupt  bill  but  the  tremendous  currents  stirred  up  by  the 

1910)  I  Ptoria  (Ills.)  R0giit*r  tmd  Nortk-WfUm  Otrntttr,  Aug.  M, 
1849t  ar—%  Bag  (Wii.)  Rtfublieam,  June  18,  1849;  Wabatk  Brnpnu 
(Terra  Haute,  Ind.).  July  IS,  1849. 

"Wsrii.  Corr.,  CkarktUm  Comri0r,  Aug.  18.  1840|  IWmoU  B0ftatUcm 
(Sbawneetown).  July  16,  Aug.  19  and  Oct  99,  184A{  Ptorta  BtgitUr, 
May  6  and  Aug.  19,  1849;  Htmktg*  amd  Iowa  Pairittt  (Burlington), 
Aug.  18  and  Sept  8,  1849;  iMciagtoa  (Ky.)  Obtrttr  tmd  Bapartar, 
Sept  17,  1849;  Tk»  CommonwttUlk  (Frankfort,  Ky.).  Aug.  9(K  1849; 
PbUaddphla  North  Ataorteam,  July  1ft,  1849;  Be$ton  AtUu.  Aug.  19, 
1849;  yfaah.  Corr.,  N.  7.  Courior  and  Baqairor,  quoted  in  Natiamai 
Inttm^nteor,  Sept  S,  1849;  Letter  from  "A  Ottoen  of  the  Valky"  to 
Ibid..  Oct..  18,  1843;  Ibid.,  Sept  1,  7  and  10.  1849;  Bottom  Btomimf 
MtreantiU  Journal.  Waah.,  Corr.,  June  94  and  98  and  July  9  and  S,  1849. 

•PhUadelphia  North  Amtriean.  Aug.  9ft,  1849;  BotUn  Atlat.  Jvif 
91  and  Aug.  Ift,  1849. 

••Wash.  Corr.,  Nowark  DaUjf  AdtortUor,  Aug.  IS,  18«t. 

•  Watkington  Ohbo.  Aug.  ft,  1849;  U.  8.  Oaxottt,  qnoted  in  Bottom 
Conritr.  Aug.  16,  1849;  Bottom  Atlat,  Aug.  18  and  30,  1849;  PUladeipliia 
Nortk  Amtriean,  Aug.  31.  1849;  Battimtort  Amtriean,  July  U,  1849; 
WadL  Corr.,  Ntvark  DaUy  Advtrtiitr,  Aug.  13,  1849. 


ryl#r'«  Tariff  Ytton 


stormy  debatei  on  the  land  policy  combined  with  the  tariff 
swamped  him.  Had  Harrison  remained  in  the  White  House, 
no  man  can  conjecture  what  course  events  might  have  taken, 
but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  party  with  the  composite 
nature  of  the  Whig  party  could  have  escaped  demoralization 
at  a  time  when  the  Eastern  wing  was  pulling  for  protection, 
the  Western  faction  for  distribution,  and  the  Southern 
members  were  opposing  both.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  a 
country  with  three  great  sections  whose  interests  were  so 
different.  The  manufacturing  East  looked  with  suspicion 
and  jealousy  upon  the  great  West  whose  cheap  lands  of 
seemin^y  limitless  extent  were  constantly  attracting  her 
citizens  whose  interests  were  sure  to  be  identified  with  those 
of  their  new  neighbors.  The  same  considerations  apply  to 
the  South  whose  influence  in  the  councils  of  the  nation  was 
seriously  menaced  by  Westward  migration,  the  New  Eng- 
land tariff  policy,  and  the  rising  tide  of  abolitionism.  The 
West  has  always  chafed  under  the  financial  policies  of  the 
East.  It  has  complained  that  it  has  been  denied  compensa- 
tion of  some  sort.  Pre-emption  and  distribution  were  de- 
nuuided  as  a  right,  and  when  the  other  sections  stood  in 
the  wmj  of  these  saeasures,  the  West,  party  or  no  party, 
revised.  la  the  campaign  of  1840  the  Whig  leaders 
smeared  tiw  issues,  bat  no  sooner  was  the  excitement  of  the 
moment  over  tkaa  psrty  unity  was  sacrificed  to  sectional 
considerations. 


CHAPTER  VI 


DMTKIBUTION  ArTBB  184X 


AFTER  the  three  diiastrouf  vetoes  of  184f  distribution 
ceased  to  be  a  national  issue  of  any  considerable  im- 
portance. Nevertheless  Clay's  favorite  measure  retained 
many  friends  in  all  sections  of  the  country,  who  continued 
the  agitation,  in  one  form  or  another,  up  to  the  eve  of  the 
Civil  War.* 

From  the  adjournment  of  the  stormy  session  of  Congress 
in  September,  1842,  to  the  end  of  the  presidential  campaign 
of  1844  a  large  number  of  political  meetings  and  conventions 
were  held,  in  which  distribution  was  indorsed  and  Clay  named 
as  the  choice  for  the  presidential  nomination.'  Dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  failure  of  distribution  was  especially  strong  in 
the  debtor  States.  Both  distribution  and  assumption  of 
State  debts  were  known  to  be  out  of  the  question  with  Tyler 
in  the  executive  chair.*  For  this  reason  distribution  meta- 
morphosed into  a  "National  Stock  Proposition"  which  pro- 
vided for  the  issue  of  stock  to  the  amount  of  two  hundred 

*  In  discussing  the  Uter  phases  of  distribution  I  tasTc  not  thought 
it  necessary  to  burden  the  pages  with  footnote  references,  but  ratlier 
to  indicate  those  of  greater  importance. 

'See  flies  of  Tkt  Natioital  InttUigtnetr  for  1849,  184S  and  1844,  In 
which  extracts  from  other  papers  and  accounts  of  meetings  will  be 
found  in  great  number.  The  Richmond  Bnq»ir«r  and  North  CaroUma 
Standard  also  contain  much  information. 

*The  slump  in  the  sales  of  public  lands  from  1841  to  18U  led  sane 
to  doubt  the  eAcacy  of  distribution  as  an  aid  to  the  States.  Cf.  Dew^, 
Finameial  HUtory  of  tk0  Vnittd  atat«$,  946. 

88 


DMrHmiUm  afUr  184»  19 

oiilHont,  hearing  three  per  cent,  interest,  to  be  diitribated 
among  the  respectiTe  States  and  Territoriei  according  to  the 
federal  ratio.  The  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
were  to  be  accumulated  as  a  fund  for  the  payment  of  the  in- 
terest and  the  redemption  of  the  principal*  Although  eren 
its  opponents  adniitted  that  the  plan  gained  many  adherents, 
it  ncrer  had  a  faint  chance  of  becoming  a  law." 

In  the  campaign  of  1844,  although  distribution  was  in- 
dorsed by  the  Whig  and  condemned  by  the  Democratic 
platform,*  the  question  was  of  comparatively  little  import- 
ance, except  as  a  local  issue  in  certain  States,  notably  North 
Carolina^  Men  of  the  stripe  of  Rives,  of  Virginia,  de 
clared  for  Clay  and  in  the  same  breath  declared  that  dis- 
tribution was  no  longer  an  issue.'  Prominent  Whig  speakers, 
including  Clay  and  Frelinghuysen,  before  and  during  the 
campaign  declared  distribution  was  an  important  Whig 
measure,*  while  Democratic  candidates  specifically  con- 
demned it  and  with  the  Whig  press  predicted  that  Gay's 

*  Th4  Naiional  JnUmg*ne*r.  Jane  fl,  Jnlj  10,  Oct  1,  Nov.  f,  IMS; 
and  Feb.  9, 11,  16,  April  18,  Umj  »,  16,  Sept  90,  and  Nor.  05,  1848. 

■  Comg.  Ohb«.  9T  Cong..  9  SeM.,  609.  6S4,  660,  70T,  T81,  7S»-T8T,  TM, 
704,  883.  860,  891.  994,  980|  Ibid.,  97  Cong.,  S  Bess.,  81,  74,  76,  96,  809^ 
904.  806.  806,  806,  811,  SIS,  814,  S94,  396.  899.  886.  Th*  Natknml  /«. 
itnigtnetr  for  Nor.  06.  1848,  prinU  in  full  tiw  report  of  tiie  select 
rommittee  of  the  House  of  Rq>reaentatlves  on  tiie  bill,  tlw  ehalmaa 
of  which  wu  William  Cost  Johnton.  the  aathor  ot  the  MIL 

'Stanwood,  A  HUtory  of  tkt  PfMiuf,  ifl6,  990,  991. 

'  See  flies  of  North  Carolina  Standard  for  1848  and  1844,  espeeialljr 
Sept  18.  Dec.  90  and  97.  1843;  March  90^  April  94  and  June  6.  1844, 
and  Jan.  8,  1846. 

•  Rivei'i  letter  dated  Jan.  I.  1844.  hi  Natiomat  IntoMgonetr,  Jan.  10, 
1844 1  Ridmomd  Bnfmror,  Jan.  IS,  1844. 

*yatUmal  Int0mp»ne«r,  Majr  9.  Juiy  6,  Aug.  19  and  97,  1844t  8.  A. 
Foot.  Autobiograpkp,  II.,  946.  946,  963.  964t  Whig  Almanae.  1848, 
p.  17(  W.  O.  Brownlow,  A  PoUtieal  Rtgiitor,  etc.,  180,  131 1  McLanghlin, 
Ltwit  Com,  008.  908(  NiM  Rogitttr,  LXVI.,  106,  107;  Seward's  speech, 
Haiiomal  InttlUgoneor,  Manh  11,  1844(  IMd..  Sept  10,  1844. 


MICROCOPY  RESOIUTION  TEST  CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  V) 


1.0 


I'l;  M 


1.25 


1^  !■■     12.2 
2.0 


1^ 

14.0 


I 


1.8 


1.4     llilll.6 


^  >IPPLIED  IM^GE    Inc 

S^  '653  Eosl   Main  Street 

I^S  Roctiester,   New  rork        14609       USA 

^S  ("S)   *82  -  0300  -  Phone 

^S  (716)   288  -  5989  -  fan 


90 


The  Political  History  of  the  PubUc  Lands 


2  liJ 


election  would  mean  the  enactment  of  such  a  law.*"  After 
election  Clay  declared  that  his  triumph  would  have  meant 
the  distribution  of  the  land  fund,**  and  he  attributed  his  de- 
feat to  the  hostility  of  the  foreign  element.**  There  may 
be  some  truth  in  the  latter  assertion  because  in  the  West 
his  utterances  against  the  squatter  and  pre-emption  were 
used  against  him.*^  However,  based  on  an  examination  of 
the  newspapers  of  the  time,  it  is  safe  to  assert  that  in  the 
South  the  Texan  question  and  the  possibility  of  war  with 
Mexico  swallowed  up  distribution,  while  in  the  North  Texas 
and  the  encroaching  Southern  interests  were  the  issues. 
Whether  or  not  Clay's  election  would  have  been  followed  by 
a  distribution  law,  his  defeat  certainly  sealed  its  doom.*^ 
The  Mexican  War  buried  it  under  a  national  debt  sufficiently 
heavy  to  keep  it  down  for  many  years.  By  an  act  of  Con- 
gress,*' approved  Jan.  28,  1847,  the  proceeds  of  the  land 
sales  were  pledged  to  the  extinguishment  of  the  public  debt. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  distribution  had  the  least  influence 
in  determining  the  election  of  the  Whig  candidates  in  1848.*' 


m 


**  Richmond  Enquirer,  May  9,  June  4,  Aug.  13  and  S3,  1844;  ifo- 
tional  Intelligencer,  Aug.  13,  1844;  Van  Buren  to  Democratic  State 
Convention  of  Indiana,  Feb.  15,  1843.    Van  Buren  Papert,  460. 

'^Clay  to  Babcoclc,  Dec.  17,  1844.  Colton,  Private  Corretpondence  of 
Clay,  £15;  Clay  to  Citizens  of  New  Haven,  Conn.,  Nov.  16,  1844.  Na- 
tional Intelligencer,  Dec.  31,  1844. 

"  Clay  to  Crittenden,  Nov.  38,  1844.    Coleman,  Crittenden,  I.,  3S3,  994. 

"Arkantat  Banner,  April  34,  May  1,  Oct  S  and  93,  1844;  Arkantae 
State  Gazette,  Feb.  38,  May  8  and  Oct.  9,  1844.  Fear  that  Clay's  elec- 
tion would  be  followed  by  stricter  naturalization  laws  might  Iiave  been 
of  still  greater  importance. 

"Cf.  Ford,  The  Campaign  of  1844,  American  Antiquarian  Society, 
Proceedingi,  19U9-10.    New  Series,  XX.,  195. 

"Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Dec.  8,  1847,  VI.,  195; 
Statute*  at  Large,  IX.,  118-133. 

"An  examination  of  the  flies  of  the  National  Intelligencer,  Philadel- 
phia  North   American,   Richmond   Enquirer,   Illinoit   State   Regitter, 


Distribution  after  184£ 


91 


About  the  year  1850  distribution  revives,  and,  curiously 
enough,  becomes  cf  ^eatcst  importance  in  the  very  sec- 
tion of  the  councry  which  had  formerly  borne  the  greatest 
hostility  toward  it.  In  some  regions  of  the  South  it  be- 
came such  a  live  issue  that  party  leaders  based  their  appeal 
for  support  on  it  and  in  some  cases  even  parties  split  on  it.*^ 
The  Whig  party  after  1854  ceased  to  be  a  serious  contender 
for  political  honors,  and  its  successor,  or  rather  its  substi- 
tute, the  Native  American  party,  flew  the  distribution  flag  at 
its  mast  head  as  one  means  of  drawing  attention  from  its 
former  record  and  attracting  those  who  did  not  feel  at  home 
with  the  Democrats."  The  year  1864  saw  the  birth  of  a 
sectional  party  organized  in  opposition  to  the  slave-holding 
aristocracy  which  was  in  control  of  the  administration. 
This  party  in  its  fight  against  the  Southern  leaders  adopted 
the  policy  of  land  grants  to  railroads  and  later  the  homestead 
measure  as  a  bid  for  Western  support.  This  action  of  the 
Republican  party,  especially  the  adoption  of  homestead, 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  South  and  some  people  of  the  East 
to  the  fact  that  they  were  in  danger  not  only  of  losing  their 
share  in  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  through  the  medium 
of  the  federal  treasury,  but  that  they  were  in  immediate 
danger  of  losing  a  very  considerable  portion  of  their  popu- 
lation which  would  be  attracted  to  the  West  by  the  free 
lands.  Hence  distribution  was  seized  upon  as  a  counter- 
agent  to  homestead  or  land  grants.^'     The  anticipated  sur- 

Misti$$ippi  Free  Trader,  The  MUeitrippian,  Biehmond  Whig,  North 
Carolina  Standard,  Wilmington  (N.  C.)  Standard,  Wilmington  (N.  C.) 
Journal  and  Charleeton  Mercury  leads  to  this  conclusion.  Tlie  Demo- 
crats adopted  an  anti-distribution  plank  in  their  platform. 

"In  North  Carolina. 

"Cf.  The  Daily  Union  (Washington,  D.  C),  June  14,  1854;  Wil- 
mington Journal,  April  97,  ISSH. 

"Floridian  and  Journal,  Feb.  38,  18A9,  and  Jan.  7,  18M{  Biehmond 


I'^'^ 


n 


The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landt 


! 


I 


plus  in  1857  also  gave  an  impetus  to  the  movement.^ 

The  revival  of  distribution  assumed  two  forms,  that  of 
distributing  the  land  revenue  **  and  of  distributing  the 
lands  themselves  among  the  States  according  to  a  fixed  ratio. 
The  most  important  of  these  projects  was  the  bill  intro- 
duced by  Representative  Bennett,  of  New  ^ork,  m  1862, 
providing  for  a  grant  of  lands  to  the  various  States  and 
Territories  according  to  a  fixed  ratio/'  It  passed  the  House 
in  1852  with  practically  all  Whigs  in  favor  and  the  great 
majority  of  Democrats  :n  opposition.  The  bill,  in  modified 
forms,  hung  fire  until  1857.     It  was  very  unpopular  in  the 

Whig,  March  4,  9,  S3,  AprU  33  and  June  30,  1853;  Mvunstota  Democrat, 
April  36,  1853;  Daily  Chronicle  and  Sentinel  (Augusta,  Ga.),  June  1, 
1853;  Delaware  Republican  (Wilmington),  July  3,  1853;  North  Carolina 
Standard,  June  1,  July  38,  and  Nov.  11,  1853;  Lharletton  Courier,  Jan. 
3,  1854;  Charleston  Mercury,  March  9,  1857;  Republian  Banner  and 
NaehvUle  Whig,  Jan.  6  and  7,  1854;  Feb.  5  and  30,  March  10,  35  and 

38,  1857,  and  several  numbers  in  May,  June  and  July,  1857;  Charletton 
Evening  Newt,  quoted  in  Republican  Banner  and  Nathville  Whig,  Jan. 

39,  1857;  Bell's  speech.  Ibid.,  March  11,  1853;  Baltimore  Clipper,  July 

13,  1854;  Wilmington  Daily  Journal,  April  11,  1857;  Memphis  DMy 
Appeal,  May  13,  31  and  June  3  and  4,  1857;  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  878;  Ibid.,  31  Cong.,  3  tJess.,  313,  314;  Ibid,,  S3  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
673. 

There  was  consistency  in  the  adoption  of  a  measure  hostile  to  home- 
stead by  an  anti-Catholic  and  anti-foreign  party,  since  distribution  was 
incompatible  with  the  policy  of  giving  the  public  lands  to  actual  settlers, 
which  was  an  inducement  to  immigration. 

^National  Intelligencer,  Aug.  35  and  39,  1857;  The  Washington 
Union,  May  31  and  3S,  1857;  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  3  Sess,  738-740, 
793,  793. 

"Bell's  bill  defeated  in  Senate  12  to  30,  May  3,  1850.  Cong.  Globe, 
SI  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  900.  Campbell's  Deposit  bill,  Wilmington  Journal, 
April  6,  1857. 

**Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1536;  Ibid.,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  848- 
851;  House  Reports,  34  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  No.  263;  St.  Anthony  (Minn.) 
Express,  July  30,   1852;  Southern  Advocate    (Huntsville,  Ala.),  July 

14,  18S2;  National  Intelligencer,  Jan.  7,  1854;  Evening  Star  (Washing- 
ton, D.  C),  July  6,  1854.    See  Sanborn,  BaUroad  Land  Grants,  40  se^  ' 


Dittribution  after  18^2  98 

West  where  it  was  feared,  with  good  reason,  that  in  their 
oager  desire  to  convert  the  lands  into  cash,  the  States  would 
put  their  lands  on  the  market  very  cheap  with  the  result 
that  most  of  them  would  be  snapped  up  by  speculators.^" 

As  a  national  issue  distribution  cut  no  figure  in  1852, 
although  the  Democratic  party  again  incorporated  an  anti- 
distribution  plank  in  its  platform,  but,  in  the  words  of  the 
Xew  York  Weekly  Tribune,^*  it  was  "throwing  stones  at 
!i  dead  dog,  without  having  the  courage  to  look  a  live  one  in 
the  face." 

In  Virginia  the  Whigs  made  an  attempt  to  stir  up  en- 
thusiasm in  1852  for  Bennett's  bill,  and  adopted  a  resolu- 
tion endorsing  it  at  the  State  convention,"  but  aside  from 
the  year  1867,  when  the  Know-nothing  party  made  its  fight 
solely  on  the  issue  of  distribution,  there  was  not  much  en- 
thusiasm.** 

In  Tennessee  the  Native  Americans  succeeded  in  reviving 
distribution  to  such  an  extent  that  in  the  State  campaign 

^KnoxvUU  (Tenn.)  Plebeian,  quoted  in  Arkanioi  Statt  OaxttU  and 
Democrat,  Aug.  6,  1854;  Alton  (lU.)  TeUgraph.  June  23,  1859;  Th» 
Pennei/lvanian,  quoted  in  Th»  Daily  Union  (Wash.),  June  99,  1859; 
Jefenon  (Mo.)  Inquirer,  Dec.  4  and  99,  1859;  Arkanta$  Statt  Oazette 
and  Democrat,  Aug.  6,  1852,  Keokuk  (la.)  Diepatek,  quoted  iu  Iowa 
Republican  (Iowa  City),  Jan.  25,  1854;  A.  C.  Dodge  to  Benton,  Nor. 
11,  1852,  in  8t.  Louie  Democrat,  quoted  in  Jeferton  Inquirer,  Nov.  9T, 
1852;  Republican  Banner  and  Naihville  Whig,  April  19,  1857;  Oolde- 
borouffh  Republican  and  Patriot,  quoted  in  North  Carolina  Standard, 
June  18,  1853;  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  900. 

**June  12,  1852. 

"Richmond  Whig.  April  16,  Sept  18,  22  and  99,  1852;  Richmond 
Enquirer  (semi-weeltly),  April  20,  1852;  New  York  Weekly  Tribune, 
April  24,  1852;  Lexington  (Va.)  Gcaette,  quoted  in  Richmond  Whia. 
Alay  14,  1852.  *' 

'Richmond  South,  q,  *ted  in  North  Carolina  Standard.  June  17, 
1857;  Ibid..  May  99  and  /une  IS,  1857;  The  Valley  Spirit  (Va.),  quoted 
m  Waehington  Union,  ide.y  22,  1857;  Memphie  Daily  Appeal,  May  18 
and  29,  1857;  WOrtAngxtn  (N.  C.)  DoJjy  Jo^imA,  April  3,  1857. 


M  The  Political  History  of  the  PvhUc  Landt 


■1     r4» 


of  1857,  although  they  were  defeated,  the  Democratic  candi- 
date for  governor  deemed  the  issue  of  sufficient  importance 
to  meet  his  opponent  in  joint  debate  on  the  subject  on  several 
occasions.*' 

Distribution  gained  the  greatest  following  of  all  in  North 
Carolina.  In  the  struggles  between  the  friends  and  foes  of 
distribution  in  Tyler's  administration  the  North  Carolina 
senators  voted  constantly  against  the  twenty  per  cent, 
proviso  and  in  favor  of  its  repeal  later.  The  State  had  en- 
gaged in  internal  improvements  for  which  the  land  fund  was 
desired,  especially  in  the  "up  country."  '*'  In  fact,  the  re- 
vival of  distribution  assumed  the  character  of  a  struggle 
between  tide  water  and  the  up  country.  In  1853  the  "in- 
surgent" Democrats  prevented  the  election  of  a  United 
States  senator  ^  who  was  known  to  be  hostile  to  distribution, 
and  ran  distribution  candidates  in  several  sections.'**  The 
following  year  the  Whigs  took  up  distribution,  and,  although 
they  met  defeat,  the  Democrats  suffered  heavy  losses.*^     In 

'Bepubliean  Banner  and  NoihvilU  Whig,  May  9,  99,  June  16  and 
17,  Aug.  1,  4  and  9,  1867;  Memphit  Nev)$,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  June  11, 
1857;  LouiivilU  Journal,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  July  18,  1867;  Mtmphit  DaOg 
Appeal.  April  24,  1867;  The  Republican  Banner  for  May,  June  and 
July,  1857,  contains  accounts  of  several  joint  debates  between  Hatton, 
Whig  and  American  candidate  for  governor,  and  Harris,  the  Democratic 

nominee. 

"Cf.  Address  signed  by  thirty-seven  Western  members  of  the  State 
Legislature  on  the  subject  of  free  suflFrage  and  a  State  convention, 
Wilmington  Journal.  Feb.  94,  1851;  Ibid..  May  9,  1851,  and  Feb.  97, 
1854. 

"Dobbin.    Wilmington  Daily  Journal.  July  28,  1853. 

"North  Carolina  Standard  (semi-weeltly),  May  28,  June  1,  15,  18, 
22  and  29,  July  9,  13,  16,  20,  33  and  97,  Aug.  6,  10  and  Sept.  24,  185S; 
Salisbury  Banner  and  Charlotte  Democrat,  quoted  in  North  CaroliM 
Standard,  May  25  and  Nov.  26,  1863;  Wilmington  Daily  Journal.  June 
8,  15,  16,  99,  23,  July  92,  95,  28,  Aug.  2,  3,  6,  8,  10  and  11,  1853. 

"  Elizabeth  City  Pioneer,  quoted  in  North  Carolina  Standard,  Nov.  19, 
1853;  Democratic  Pioneer,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  Nov.  16,  1853;  Roanoke  Be- 


Dittribution  after  184£  05 

1856  the  issue  was  dead,'^  but  in  the  congressional  canvass 
the  next  year  the  distributionists  made  a  strong  effort"  but 
they  lost  all  contests  except  one.  The  gubernatorial  cam- 
paign which  followed  in  1858  again  brought  forth  the  land 
question.  The  Know-nothings  did  not  put  a  candidate  in 
the  field,  but  a  Democrat  running  on  a  distribution  ticket 
opposed  the  regular  Democratic  nominee."  After  this 
year  distribution  ceased  to  be  an  issue  in  North  CaroUna. 

The  scheme  to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the 
public  lands  is  much  more  than  an  episode  in  the  history  of 
the  public  land  policy.     It  was  never  given  a  fair  trial,  but 
the  proposition  was  before  the  country  for  a  long  term  of 
years  and  attracted  many  friends.     As  a  study  in  sectional- 
ism it  is  of  first-rate  importance  because  it  figured  promi- 
nently in  State  and  national  campaigns,  was  discussed  at 
pubhc  meetings,  and  was  a  fruitful  theme  for  newspaper  dis- 
cussion.    Moreover,  it  is  impossible  to  understand  our  tariff 
history  in   the  thirties   and   early   forties  without  having 
clearly  in  mind  the  political  and  sectional  line-up  on  dis- 
tribution.    The  political  fortunes  of  Henry  Clay  were  pro- 
foundly influenced  by  his  stand  in  the  public  land  question. 
It  perhaps  would  not  be  entirely  inaccurate  to  say,  as  Sena- 
tor Preston  said,  that  Clay's  enemies  in  the  great  tariff  agita- 

p«6Kc««  quoted  to  Ibid..  Nov.  19.  IMS,  FayriCevUh  Carolinian,  quoted 
in  Ibtd..  Nov.  19,  1853;  SalUbury  Banner,  quoted  to  Ibid..  Nov.  86,  18SS- 
Jforth  Carolina  Standard.  November  and  December,  1843;  January.  Feb^ 
ruary,  March.  April  1  and  6,  May  and  August,  1854,  Wilmington  Daily 
J<mr,Ml,  Dec.  20,  1853,  February  and  August,  1854. 
for  ^  *^"  °'  ^'"''*  ^<"'<'""«  '»'«»*»'■<*  and  Wilmington  Daily  Journal 

-Ibid..  1857. 
J*  North    Carolina    Standard.    December,    1857.    January.    February. 
March.  April,  May,  June.  July  and  August.  1858;  Wilmington  Journal. 
July  and   August.   1858;   speech   of   RepresenUtlve  Goode,  of   North 
CaroUna,  Jan.  19,  1859.    Cong.  Qlobt.  35  Cong..  S  Sess.,  466 


96 


The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landt 


tion  attempted  "to  bury  him  under  the  public  domain."  " 
The  public  land  question  in  Clay's  time  was  so  important  and 
the  sectional  feeling  on  it  so  varied  and  intense  that  a  candi- 
date for  the  presidency  greatly  lessened  his  chances  of  elec- 
tion by  coming  out  for  a  clean-cut  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem. In  order  to  secure  the  right  setting  for  a  given  meas- 
ure, it  is  necessary  to  take  a  cross  sectional  view  of  the  con- 
ditions at  that  time.  Any  such  view  during  the  three  dec- 
ades preceding  the  Civil  War  would  show  the  great  im- 
portance of  the  public  lands. 


"Speech  at  Charleston,  May  89,  1841. 
and  June  1«  1841. 


National  Int»ttig»ne0r,  May 


CHAPTER  VII 


THB   BEOINNINa   OF   THE  NATIONAL  HOMESTEAD   AGITATION 

rjlHE  problem  of  the  public  lands  was  by  no  means  set- 
•■•  tied  by  the  enactment  of  the  pre-emption  law  of  1841. 
The  West  was  not  easily  satisfied;  it  accepted  the  law  as 
a  concession  wrung  from  a  reluctant  Congress  whose  sym- 
pathy for  the  West  was  far  from  cordial  This  was  proved 
when  new  projects  antagonistic  to  pre-emption  were  con- 
stantly brought  forward  by  men  whose  understanding  of 
Western  conditions  was  decidedly  superficial  and  whose  de- 
votion to  their  own  sections  and  personal  interests  was 
clearly  seen.  It  is  not  to  be  thought  that  the  West  was  a 
unit  on  the  land  question  or  that  the  Western  point  of  view 
was  always  correct.  On  specific  propositions  the  interests 
of  the  Western  States  and  of  individuals  within  the  States 
clashed^  For  instance,  as  a  general  rule  the  West  was 
hostile  to  the  policy  of  issuing  land  warrants  to  soldiers, 
but  there  were  many  pioneers  who  had  accumulated  a  little 
capital  who  eagerly  grasped  the  opportunity  of  purchasing 
warrants  at  reduced  rates  from  speculators. 

The  same  was  true  in  the  case  of  land  grants  to  railways, 
which  at  first  blush  appears  contrary  to  the  pioneer  spirit. 
The  pioneer  was  an  extreme  individualist  and  when  aid  to 
railways  in  the  form  of  a  grant  of  public  lands  meant  more 
money  in  his  pocket  by  increasing  the  value  of  his  land  and 
securing  better  markets,  he  was  anxious  to  put  it  through. 
It   depended   upon  what   disposition   was   made   of  lands 


98         The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lande 

granted  to  individuals,  corporations,  and  States  whether  or 
not  the  Western  man  placed  himself  in  opposition.  If  the 
grants  to  States  or  to  individuals  satisfied  the  demand  for 
cheap  lands,  no  great  need  for  a  pre-emption  or  homestead 
law  was  felt.  The  pioneer  did  not  care  so  much  how  he 
secured  lands  as  he  did  about  convenience  and  cheapness  in 
securing  them.  He  wanted  to  secure  title  in  the  shortest 
time  possible  with  the  least  possible  expense.  The  sooner 
title  could  be  secured  the  sooner  the  pioneer  could  obtain 
a  loan  on  it  and  the  greater  security  he  felt  from  specula- 
tors.* 

The  pre-emption  law  greatly  increased  the  volume  of  busi- 
ness in  the  land  offices  '  and  was  productive  of  much  fraud, 
both  on  the  part  of  "settlers"  and  speculators."  Through 
his  superior  flnancial  resources  and  ability  to  employ  shrewd 
men  to  locate  the  choicest  lands  the  speculator  frequently 
got  the  best  of  the  settler.  His  agents  were  instructed  to 
select  thos  tracts  most  likely  to  advance  rapidly  in  value 
due  to  advantageous  situation,  excellence  of  soils,  minerals, 
water  power,  or  with  reference  to  settlements  already  made; 
and,  as  a  result,  when  the  land  sales  opened,  he  knew  ex- 
actly what  tracts  were  unoccupied  and  of  greatest  value.* 

According  to  law  a  title  could  not  be  secured  to  a  tract 

of  government  land  unless  it  had  been  proclaimed  for  sale 

by  the  President  of  the  United  States.     Before  the  date 

set  for  the  sale  pre-emptioners  had  to  make  payment  in  order 

to  prevent  their  claims  from  being  sold  to  other  parties. 

In  a  new  country  money  is  almost  always  "tight"  and  in 

order  to  secure  the  amount  necessary  to  consummate  the 

*F.  H.  White,  The  Adminittration  of  th«  General  Land  Ofiee  181i^ 
1911.    Mss.  in  Harvard  Library  (1913),  pp.  93  seq.,  336  seq. 
»/6td.,  6T. 
'Ibid.,  191  seq. 
*  Wukljf  Chicago  Preu  and  TribvM,  Feb.  3,  1859. 


Naiiond  Homeatead  Agitation  99 

title  settleri  were  often  obliged  to  borrow  money  at  ex- 
orbitant rates  of  interest,  sometimes  as  high  ai;  fifty  or  one 
hundred  per  cent."  All  possible  means  were  brought  into 
play  by  unfortunate  settlers  to  have  the  auction  sales  post- 
poned." 

Horace  Greeley,  on  his  Western  trip  in  1847,  wrote  that 
a  large  portion  of  the  settlers  came  destitute,  having  ex- 
pended what  money  they  could  raise  by  the  sale  of  their 
effects  in  the  East  in  looking  for  lands  and  removing  their 
families,  so  that  after  the  necessary  amount  had  been  ex- 
pended in  building  cabins  and  stocking  their  farms  most  of 
them  were  penniless.'     The  food  for  the  pioneer's  family 
had  to  be  purchased  for  a  year  at  least;  and  before  he  was 
able  to  save  one  hundred  dollars  in  cash  he  had  to  bestow 
three  or  four  hundred  dollars'  worth  of  labor  upon  perma- 
nent improvements.     If  his  claim  was  located  in  a  region 
which  had  been  proclaimed  for  sale,  it  was,  after  a  year, 
liable  to  be  purchased  by  anybody  who  happened  along,  un- 
•  These  conditions  are  not  peculiar  to  any  one  time  or  place.    See 
for  examplet    Ptoria  BtgUttr  and  North-Wttttr*  Oaufr,  July  18, 
1841;    Chicago   Expr«t$,   quoted   in    National   InUlHgtnetr,    Mardi    7, 
1848;  Ntbraika  Advtrtiitr.  Jan.   99,   1847;   St.  Pa»l  Timt,  Aug.  4, 
18*9;  Pollt's  messages,  Dec.  9,  1845,  and  Dec.  7,  1847.    Richardson's 
Meiiagei  and  Paper;  IV.,  409,  410,  M8;  Report  of  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  Dec.  9,  1858.    Senate  Executive  Docwnente,  35  Cong.,  9  Sess., 
I*f  75* 

•Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Offlce,  Nov.  99, 
1856.  Senate  Executive  Documentt,  34  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  II.,  190.  There 
always  was  considerable  dissatisfaction  in  the  West  with  auction  sales, 
for  besides  favoring  the  speculators,  thqr  drained  the  circulating 
medium  from  the  country.  See  resolution  introduced  In  House  of 
Hepresentatives  by  Chapman,  delegate  frtra  Iowa  Territory,  April  6, 
1840.  Cong.  Globe.  96  Cong..  1  Sess.,  308;  St.  Louie  Republican,  quoted 
by  CharUeton  Courier.  April  17,  1857;  CouncU  Bluff e  BugU.  quoted  by 
yehratka  Advertiser,  March  11,  1858. 

'Letter  from  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin  Territory,  dated  July  S,  1847. 
New  York  Weekly  Tribune.  July  17,  1847. 


100       The  Political  History  of  the  PvbUe  Lands 

lets  intimidated  by  public  opinion  or  a  Claim  Association. 

Undoubtedly  the  pre-emption  law  did  mitigate  specula- 
tion but  there  is  any  amount  of  evidence  to  prove  that  it 
continued  to  be  a  great  evil."  As  a  result  of  large  tracts 
held  by  non-residents,  settlers  who  wanted  cheap  lands  had 
to  go  still  farther  into  the  wilderness,  away  from  society  and 
market,  making  the  problem  o{  defense  against  the  Indians 
and  the  administration  of  justice  difficult,  and  increasing 
the  burden  of  taxation  for  the  settlers  whose  lot  was  already 
sufficiently  burdensome.*  The  St.  Anthony  ( Minn. )  Express 
said,  in  1858:*"  .  .  .  "We  have  a  set  of  speculators,  land 
sharks,  Shylocks,  in  this  Territory,  who  have  bought  all 
the  lands  in  close  proximity  to  the  villages,  and  refuse  to 
sell  it,  except  at  a  considerable  advance  on  Government 
price."  In  a  letter  from  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin  Territory, 
July  8,  1847,"  Greeley  wrote  that  the  mischief  already 
entailed  on  the  industry  and  business  of  that  country  by  land 
speculation  was  incalculable.  Whenever,  upon  a  natural 
harbor,  a  bay,  a  head  of  navigation,  or  a  water  fall,  a  vil- 
lage began,  or  promised  to  spring  up,  the  speculator  or  his 
agent  was  early  on  hand  and  pounced  on  all  the  unoccupied 
land  within  a  circuit  of  a  mile  or  two.  This  he  would  hold 
for  a  price  treble  or  sixty-fold  that  he  had  paid  for  it. 
Meanwhile,  according  to  Greeley,  his  tract  was  a  blight  and 
a  cancer,  giving  employment  to  no  labor,  contributing  noth- 
ing to  the  erection  of  school-houses  or  churches,  or  the  en- 

*  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Dec.  S,  1855.  Houis  B»- 
«eutiv9  DoeumeiU$,  34  Cong.,  1  Sew.,  Doc.  No.  1;  ^.  F.  Wtekly  TribMn$, 
Jan.  83,  1848;  Council  Blufi  Bugla,  quoted  In  Nebreuka  AdvtrOur, 
March  11, 1858;  Resolution  of  Legislature  of  Iowa,  Feb.  90, 1858.  B9»at$ 
Mi$.  Doe.,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  No.  176. 

'Washington  Daily  Vmon,  March  18,  1857;  If,  7.  Stmi-Wttklf 
Tribwu,  July  22,  1853;  CharU*ton  Courier,  June  30,  1858. 

••Feb.  14. 

*»Jr.  r.  Wtekly  Tribunt,  July  17,  1847. 


National  HometUai  Agitation 


191 


couragement  of  merchants  or  citisens,  and  insuring  the  con- 
tinuance of  wretched,  stumpj,  miry  roads  all  around  the 
village.** 

The  ill-advised  policy  of  the  federal  government  in  issuing 
bounties  to  soldiers  in  the  form  of  assignable  land  warrants 
was  a  contributory  cause  of  the  speculative  mania."  Many 
people  thought  this  was  a  fitting  and  convenient  method  ot 
rewarding  those  who  had  served  their  country,  but  it  proved 
of  little  benefit  to  the  soldier  and  of  great  injury  to  the 
West  and  the  government.  Not  wishing  to  locate  his  war- 
rant, or  not  being  in  a  position  to  do  so,  the  soldier  dis- 
posed of  it  at  a  great  discount  to  a  speculator  who  used  it 
to  pay  the  government  for  the  land  he  purchased.  Of 
course,  the  more  land  warrants  issued  the  cheaper  they  be- 
came, and  the  greater  the  speculation.  Warrants  were 
bought  and  sold  on  the  stock  market  just  as  railway  stocks 
are  to-day,"  and  in  anticipation  of  the  opening  of  new  land 
offices  speculators  "salted  down"  large  quantities  of  them." 

Bills  making  land  warrants  assignable  were  opposed  most 
vehemently  in  the  West.  Unless  he  was  the  original  owner 
of  the  warrant,  a  man  could  not  pre-empt  land  with  it  until 
after  the  act  of  March  ««,  185«,"  while  a  speculator  might 
purchase  as  much  as  he  pleased  with  warrants  for  which  he 
had  paid  as  low  as  $20  for  a  hundred  and  sixty  acre  grant.*' 

•»  It  should  be  remembered  that  theae  are  the  words  of  a  Fourierist 
and  a  land  limitation  reformer. 

••The  quesUon  of  land  bounties  is  discussed  in  more  detaU  in  another 
connection. 

"JIT.  F.  IFwWy  Trib%n$.  May  15,  18«9{  Snni-Wttkly  Tribiim$,  June 
26,  1865;  Baltimort  B%%,  May  S,  1854,  and  Fdi>.  14,  185T;  CkarU$to» 
Couritr,  Dee.  8,  1856. 

'Chicago  Fnt  Pn$$,  quoted  in  Charkiton  Couritr.  Feb.  1,  1856. 
''StatHtea  at  Large,  X^  3,  4. 

"  Cong,  aiobt.  31  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  1708;  Ibid.,  39  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  300, 
801,  319;  N.  F.  IFMikly  Tribunt,  Nov.  13,  1859. 


lOS        The  Political  History  of  the  PvhUc  Lands 

Moreover,  the  public  land  States  did  not  receive  a  per- 
centage of  the  revenue  derived  from  the  sale  of  lands  within 
their  limits  when  paid  for  in  warrants.^*  Apropos  of  a 
bill  making  land  warrants  assignable  pending  in  Congress 
in  1852,  the  St.  Anthony  (Minn.)  Express  ^*  said: 

**.  .  .  We  believe  the  passage  of  that  bill  must  prove  most 
disadtrous  to  the  true  interests  of  Minnesota,  And  not  only 
to  her,  but  to  all  the  new  States  and  Trrritories.  This 
measure  does  not  originate  from  the  West — is  not  desired 
by  this  section.  It  is  an  infamous  scheme  of  Eastern  specu- 
lators, to  inflict  a  lasting  curse  on  our  Territory.  .  .  . 
Nearly  200,000  land  warrants  yet  remain  to  be  located. 
If  assignable,  not  more  than  one-third  or  one-fourth  of  these 
will  be  located  by  the  original  holders.  Land  sharks  will 
swallow  all  the  rest,  and  disgorge  them,  polluted  by  their 
blighting  touch,  upon  the  fairest  portions  of  our  Territory. 
Instead  of  boats  swarming  with  an  energetic,  hardy,  indus- 
trious crowd  of  farmers  and  mechanics,  they  will  be  encum- 
bered by  tie  agents  of  Eastern  nuUionaires,  their  pockets 
stuffed  with  warrants,  who  like  the  flies  that  came  upon  the 
borders  of  Egypt,  will  cause  the  land  to  stink.  ...  If 
the  Bill  .  .  .  passes  Congress,  there  is  but  one  course  that 
we  are  aware  of,  that  will  secure  us  from  the  evils  we  have 
deprecated — let  our  Legislature  pass  an  act,  taxing  the 
lands  of  non-residents  so  highly,  as  to  amount  to  a  prohibi- 
tion of  purchase."  ^*^  .  .  . 

"  Under  act  of  Sept.  4,  1841.    See  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  601. 

"Feb.  28,  1852. 

"  Attempts  were  made  by  Benton  to  amend  bounty  bills  by  providing 
that  a  holder  of  a  land  warrant  should  not  sell  his  claim  before  the 
patent  was  issued  and  not  for  at  least  five  years  thereafter.  Jan.  16, 
1847.  Cong.  Globe,  29  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  192;  Jan.  19,  1847.  Ibid.,  205- 
207.  See  also  speech  of  Senator  Borland,  of  Arlcansas,  Jin.  16,  1840. 
Ibid.,  SO  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  366. 


National  Homestead  Agitation 


lOS 


It  is  obvious  that  the  West  would  not  tolerate  willingly 
a  law  which  made  possible  such  conditions  as  existed  under 
the  law  of  1841,  and,  indeed,  it  was  continually  clamoring 
for  a  law  which  would  reserve  the  public  domain  for  actual 
settlers. 

Next  to  the  pressure  of  public  opinion  in  the  West,  the 
labor  movement  in  the  East  was  the  greatest  factor  in  the 
agitation  for  reserving  the  public  lands  for  settlers.     Land 
reform  was  one  of  the  issues  washed  up  by  the  great  radical 
wave  which   swept   over  America  in  the   forties.     As  the 
frontier  was  pushed  westward  the  lack  of  transportation 
facilities  made  it  increasingly  difficult  for  men  of  small  means 
in  the  East  to  go  to  the  cheap  lands  in  the  West  which  could 
not  be  reached  by  water."     The  lack  of  organization  of 
Western  colonization,  such  as  operates  in  Canada  at  the 
present  time,  and  the  natural  inertia  of  many  laboring  men 
also  retarded  Western  settlement.     As  a  consequence  of  a 
variety  of  <  auses,  immigration  to  this  country  became  in- 
creasingly great  in  the  forties  and  fifties,  and  in  accordance 
with  a  well-known  rule,  the  greater  proportion  of  foreigners 
remained  in  the  cities  of  the  seaboard.'*     The  accumulation 
of  capital  and  the  introduction  of  machinery  resulted  in  the 
establishment  of  large  factories  and  the  development  of  con- 
gested industrial  centres  with  consequent  loss  of  independence 
on  the  part  of  the  wage-earners,  long  hours,  and  unsanitary 
conditions,  so  that  about  the  middle  of  the  forties  laborers 

"As  late  as  1849  not  a  mile  of  raUway  existed  in  Wisconsin,  Mis- 
souri, Arkansas,  Tennessee,  and  Texas.  McMaster,  VIII.,  88.  See 
maps  accompanying  Prof.  Paxson's  article  on  "The  RaUroads  of  the 
'Old  Northwest'  before  the  CivU  War."  Transactions  of  th«  WUeonrin 
Academy  of  Sciences,  Arts,  and  Letters,  XVII.,  243-274. 

•*S.  C.  Johnson,  A  History  of  Emigration  from  th«  United  Kingdom 
to  North  America,  1763-1912,  195  seq.  See  Report  of  the  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Census  for  J3ec.  1,  1852,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  189  tea. 


104        The  Political  History  of  the  Pvblic  Landt 

commenced  to  speak  of  the  "Bastiles  of  New  England."  *' 
The  rising  cost  of  living,  due  to  a  variety  of  causes,  was 
also  felt  in  the  homes  of  the  workingmen.**  There  was  a 
close  connection  between  the  agitation  for  land  reform  and 
periods  of  industrial  depression.  The  increasing  activities 
of  lobbyists  representing  corporations  and  monopolies  in 
the  national  and  State  capitols  were  naturally  distasteful 
to  laboring  men  who  felt  that  their  interests  were  neglected 
and  sacrificed.*' 

The  cleavage  between  labor  and  capital,  or  between  the 
"rich"  and  the  "poor,"  had  commenced  to  show  itself  as 
early  as  the  twenties  in  the  rise  of  trades  unions,  the  estab- 
lishment of  labor  papers,  and  the  formation  of  the  Work- 
ing Men's  party.*'  It  crops  out  again  in  the  Loco-Foco 
party  of  the  latter  half  of  the  next  decade,  which  was  much 
indebted  to  the  Working  Men's  party  for  issues,  leaders, 
and  precedents."  In  its  essence  the  movement  was  a  pro- 
test against  common  law  regulations  which  bore  down  on 
the  laboring  man.**  The  Loco-Foco  agitation  has  never 
been  thoroughly  studied,  but  it  is  safe  to  assert  that  its  in- 
fluence was  great.  It  seems  certain  that  the  adoption  of 
pre-emption  by  the  Democratic  party  was  in  large  measure 
due  to  this  movement  which  was  fostered  by  men  of  strong 
personality  and  qualities  of  leadership.** 

*  Working  Man's  Advocate,  Sept.  28,  1844. 

••McMaster,  VIII.,  109-111;  N.  Y.  Semi-Weekly  Tribune.  Feb.  S,  18«4. 

"Speech  of  Senator  Seward,  of  New  York,  Jan.  29,  1855.  Cong. 
Globe,  33  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  433;  speech  of  Representative  John  Kelly,  of 
New  York,  April  30,  1856.    Ibid.,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1065. 

"Wellington,  Influence  of  the  Public  Lands,  7,  8,  43;  Documentary 
History,  43  Sfiq. 

"  Byrdsall,  The  History  of  the  Loco-Foco  or  Equal  Bights  Party, 
13-15. 

"Ibid.,  57,  58. 

"  Compare  Wellington,  Influence  of  the  Public  Lands,  68  acq. 


National  Homestead  Agitation 


105 


The  Loco-Foco  organization  soon  crumbled  and  for  a  few 
years  labor  had  no  organ;  but  the  labor  leaders  were  not 
passive  and,  in  1844,  with  the  prominent  men  of  the  Work- 
ing Men's  and  the  Loco-Foco  parties  as  a  nucleus,  an  or- 
ganization more  powerful  than  either  of  the  former  was  ef- 
fected.    The  most  prominent  leader  in  the  new  movement 
was  George  Henry  Evans,  an  extreme  radical  for  his  time, 
but  a  man  of  undoubted  sincerity  and  of  no  mean  ability. 
Without  the  frills  of  a  demagogue,  Evans  rendered  a  real 
service  for  the  cause  of  labor  and  humanity.     With  the  eyes 
of  an  individualist  he  saw  that  the  contest  between  labor  and 
capital  was  bound  to   result  to  the  disadvantage   of  the 
former.     In  his  native  England  he  had  seen  the  horrors  of 
the  factory  system,  the  growing  poverty  and  dependence  of 
laboring  men  and  women,  and  the  strong  grip  of  capital 
upon  the  government.     With  Evans  was  associated  a  group 
of  radicals  who  were  likewise  alarmed  at  the  trend  of  the 
times.     The  most  prominent  among  these  were  Lewis  Mas- 
querier,  Parke  Godwin,  Mike  Walsh,  Thos.  A.  Devyr,  A.  E. 
Bovay,  Ransom  Smith,  John  Windt,  Alexander  Ming,  Jr., 
and  John  Commerford,  the  last  three  of  whom  had  been  con- 
nected with  the  Loco-Foco  party.'*     Their  principles  were 
voiced  through  the  medium  of  The  Working  Man's  Ad- 
vocate,   edited    by    Evans,    which    appeared    in    March, 
1844. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Evans  was  disturbed  by  the  great 
influx  of  immigrants  into  the  labor  market,"*  but  he  would 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  proposition  to  extend  the  time 
required  for  naturalization  or  to  restrict  immigration  in 
any  way.  Rather,  said  he,  seek  out  the  reasons  why,  in 
such  an  immense  and  comparatively  uncultivated  country, 

"Byrdsall,  16,  IT. 

"  Working  Man's  AdvoeaU,  June  1«  and  August  3,  1844. 


I 


106       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landi 


every  able  bodied  immigrant  should  not  be  a  desirable  ac- 
quipition.  The  obvious  remedy,  he  insisted,  was  to  encourage 
newcomers  to  go  West  to  convert  the  wilderness  into  fruit- 
ful farms.  To  the  trafBc  in  the  soil  he  attributed  the  vast 
inequality  of  condition  among  people.'*  If  on  the  first  set- 
tlement of  this  country  the  natural  rights  of  man  had  been 
recognized  and  an  equal  allotment  of  the  soil  had  been  made, 
on  the  principle  of  allowing  to  each  family  sufficient  for 
their  subsistence,  with  restrictions  against  any  further  ac- 
cumulation, he  believed  that  every  man  might  have  been  a 
land-holder,  either  of  a  farm  or  lot  at  his  option;  popula- 
tion would  have  been  far  less  scattered ;  fewer  roads,  canals, 
and  bridges  would  have  been  necessary;  land  woiild  have 
been  much  better  improved;  and  markets  much  more  acces- 
sible. In  short,  Evans  believed  that  the  freedom  of  the 
public  lands  would  be  the  entering  tcedge  to  effect  the  re- 
generation of  society."  Fourierism,  with  its  American 
modifications,  he  regarded  impractical  ;**  and  he  was  skepti- 
cal of  trades  associations  because  he  was  convinced  that 
capitalists  would  always  get  a  sufficient  number  of  work- 
ingmen  to  sell  their  labor  cheap.''  "Being  united  on  the 
Ten  Hour  System  as  a  means,"  he  wrote,  "let  us  unite  on 
the  Freedom  of  the  Public  Lands  as  an  end." 

The  agitation  for  the  freedom  of  the  public  lands  did  not 
originate  in  1844 ;  it  is  one  of  the  most  deep-seated  pioneer 
ideas.'*  The  origin  on  the  "homestead"  doctrine  goes  back 
to  the  time  of  the  first  "West."  "The  practice  of  'squat- 
ting*  on  lands  was  one  of  the  oldest  traditions  in  the  colon- 

■*  Working  Man'i  Advoeat;  April  6,  1844. 
"Ibid.,  Sept  28,  1844. 
**Ibid.,  April  20,  1844. 
•J6W.,  Nov.  23,  1844. 

"Ford,  Colonial  Pnetdentt,  Chapters  VI.  and  VII.;  Dawson's  speech, 
Jan.  10,  18M.    Cong.  Olobt,  S3  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  231. 


National  Homettead  Agitation 


107 


ies,"  says  Miss  Ford,"^  "and  had  become  too  general  to  be 
wiped  out  by  legislation."     About  1845,  however,  the  soU 
was  in  a  condition  peculiarly  favorable  to  nourish  the  seeds 
scattered  by  Evans  and  his  associates.     Besides  the  condi- 
tions already  enumerated,  the  anti-rent  disturbances  in  New 
York  vitalized  the  picture  which  their  leaders  had  sketched 
for  the  laboring  men,  which  was  '  -und  to  come  as  a  result 
of  land  monopoly ,38  and  when  tVj  news  of  the  famine  in 
Ireland  reached  our  shores  the  colors  were  brought  out  even 
more  strongly.""     In  addition  to  the  Working  Man's  Advo- 
cate, the  land  reformers  carried  on  their  campaign  of  educa- 
tion through  an  organization  known  as  The  National  Reform 
Association,  the  avowed  purpose  of  which  was  to  make  the 
public  lands  of  the  States  and  of  the  United  States  free  to 
actual  settlers  and  to  actual  aettlera  only*'*     The  lands 
were  to  be  laid  out  in  farms  and  lots  which  any  man  not 
possessed  of  other  lands  might  take  possession  of  and  keep 
during  his  life  or  pleasure,  with  the  right  to  sell  his  im- 
provements at  any  time  to  any  one  not  possessed  of  other 
land. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  National  Reformers  in  New 
York,  in  May,  1846,  a  committee  was  appointed,  which  is- 
sued a  call  to  farmers,  mechanics,  and  other  friends  of  re- 
form to  send  delegates  to  a  national  convention  to  be  held 
in  New  York  City  the  following  November.*^  The  address, 
while  praising  the  work  of  other  organizations — such  as  the 
Democratic    party,    abolitionists,    temperance    reformers, 

"  Ford,  Colonial  Pneedentt,  1 W. 

"Jenkins,  Sibu  Wright,  179-186,  207-«19.  See  flies  of  N»w  York 
Weekly  Tribune  for  1844  and  McMaster,  VIII,  97-118. 

"  The  Working  Man'e  Advocate  and  The  -Voice  of  Inthutry  (LowelL 
Mass.)  for  1844,  1345  and  1847  bear  out  this  statement 

*•  Working  Man'e  Advocate,  AprU  6,  1844. 

"Jr**  York  Weekly  Tribune,  Sept  97,  1845, 


I 


106        The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Land$ 


peace  societies,  and  associationisis — declared  that  no  real 
reform  could  come  until  the  soil  was  restored  to  the  people. 
These  initial  movements  resulted  in  the  organization  of 
various  groups — national,  state,  and  city  industrial  con- 
gresses, labor  associations,  industrial  legislatures,  and  mass 
meetings — in  which  resolutions  were  adopted  indorsing  the 
movement  for  the  freedom  of  the  public  lands/'  Able 
speakers  were  engaged  to  expound  the  benefits  of  free  lands 
to  laboring  men  whenever  occasion  presented  itself.  In  a 
short  time  aux'liary  organizations  sprang  up  in  all  parts  of 
the  East  and  West.  Cleverly  worded  circulars  and  peti- 
tions were  distributed,  not  only  among  "laboring"  men,  but 
among  all  classes  of  society.  Printed  petitions  were  sent 
to  all  parts  of  the  country  for  citizens  to  sign.  The  memo- 
rial most  extensively  circulated  *'  declared  that  the  system 
of  land  traffic  imported  tu  this  country  from  Europe  is 
fast  debasing  Americans  to  the  condition  of  dependent  ten- 
ants, and  that  in  the  infancy  of  the  Republic  effectual  meas- 
ures should  be  takeu  to  eradicate  the  evil.  Therefore,  the 
government  should  no  longer  traffic,  or  permit  traffic,  in  the 
public  lands.  They  should  be  laid  out  in  farms  and  lots  for 
the  free  use  of  such  citizens  (not  possessed  of  other  land) 
as  will  occupy  them.  The  following  reasons  for  such  a  dis- 
position of  the  lands  were  given:  (1)  It  would  increase  the 
number  of  free  holders,  and  decrease  the  anti-republican  de- 

**The  material  on  this  subject  is  so  voluminous  that,  instead  of  at- 
tempting to  cite  specific  references,  the  .es'^er  is  referred  to  the  files 
of  The  Workinff  Man'$  Advocate,  TAa  N«v>  York  Weekly  and  Semi- 
Weekly  TrUtune,  The  Harbinger,  The  Voice  of  Induttry,  Der  Volkt- 
Tribun,  Sociale  Bepublik,  and  Die  Reform. 

"Printed  in  Docvmentary  Hittory,  VII.,  317-320.  Some  of  these 
petitions,  headed  "Young  America-Extra-Freedom  of  the  Public  Lands," 
are  preserved  in  the  Howe  Filet  of  the  99th  and  30th  Congresses.  They 
are  uniform  in  style  and  subject  matter  and  were,  no  doubt,  sent  out 
by  the  National  Reformers  to  all  parts  of  the  country. 


National  Homestead  Agitation 


109 


pendence  of  those  who  might  not  become  free  holders;  (ft) 
the  price  of  all  land  held  for  traffic  would  gradually  de- 
crease, as  the  drain  of  population  would  be  to  where  the 
land  was  free;  (S)  city  populations  would  diminish  gradu- 
ally till  every  inhabitant  could  be  the  owner  of  a  comfortable 
habitation;  (4)  a  standing  army  could  be  dispensed  with, 
because  the  frontier  would  be  defended  by  independent  and 
patriotic  freemen;  (6)  the  danger  of  Indian  aggressions 
would  be  lessened  if  people  took  only  enough  land  for  their 
use;  (6)  the  wastefulness  of  the  present  system  would  be 
abolished,  because  each  land  holder  would  improve  his  limited 
holdings;  (7)  prosperity  would  be  more  equally  distributed; 
(8)  crime,  idleness,  and  ofBce-seeking  would  be  done  away 
with;  (9)  in  a  great  measure,  the  necessary  evil  of  laws 
and  lawyers  would  be  lessened,  as  there  could  be  no  dispute 
about  rents,  mortgages,  or  land  titles.  These  petitions, 
signed  by  as  many  as  five  hundred,  or  more,  literally  poured 
into  Congress  from  1846  to  1862.** 

Another  very  effectively  worded  document,  entitled  "Vote 
Yourself  a  Farm,"  was  circulated.*"  To  quote  some  of  the 
striking  passages:  "Are  you  an  American  citizen?  Then 
you  are  a  joint  owner  of  the  public  lands.  Why  not  take 
enough  of  your  property  to  provide  yourself  a  home?  Why 
not  vote  yourself  a  farm? 

"Remember  poor  Richard's  saying:  *Now  I  have  a  sheep 
and  a  cow,  every  one  bids  me  *good  morrow.'  If  a  man 
have  a  house  and  home  of  his  own,  though  it  be  a  thousand 
miles  off,  he  is  well  received  in  other  people's  houses ;  while 

•♦Senator  Walker,  of  Wisconsin,  on  April  96,  1859,  presented  a  peti- 
tion fifty-two  feet  in  length.  Cong.  Olob«,  39  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1186. 
March  S,  1853,  he  declared  that  "hundreds  of  thousands,  if  not  a  mil- 
lion," petitions  had  been  presented  to  Congress.  Ibid.,  39  Confc  9  Sess^ 
1094,  1095.  ^^ 

•Printed  in  Doewauntary  Hktorf,  VII.,  S05-807. 


110        The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Land$ 


the  homeless  wretch  is  turned  away.  The  bare  right  to  a 
farm,  though  you  should  never  go  near  it,  would  save  you 
from  many  an  insult.     Therefore,  Vote  yourself  a  farm. 

"Are  you  a  party  follower?  Then  you  have  long  enough 
employed  your  vote  to  benefit  scheming  office-seekers;  use  it 
once  to  benefit  yourself — Vote  yourself  a  farm.  .  .  . 

"Are  you  a  man?  Then  assert  the  sacred  rights  of  man — 
especially  your  right  to  stand  upon  God's  earth,  and  to  till  it 
for  your  own  profit.    Vote  yourself  a  farm. 

"Would  you  free  your  country,  and  the  sons  of  toil  every- 
where, from  the  heartless,  irresponsible  mastery  of  the  aris- 
tocracy of  avarice?  Would  you  disarm  this  aristocracy  of 
its  chief  weapon,  the  fearful  power  of  banishment  from  God's 
earth?  Then  join  with  your  neighbors  to  form  a  true  Ameri- 
can party,  having  for  its  guidance  the  principles  of  the 
American  revolution,  and  whose  chief  measures  shall  be — 1. 
To  limit  the  quantity  of  land  that  any  one  man  may  hence- 
forth monopolize  or  inherit ;  *®  and  2.  To  make  the  public 
lands  free  to  actual  settlers  only,  each  having  the  right  to 
sell  his  improvements  to  any  man  not  possessed  of  other 
land."  .  .  . 

Evans  and  his  followers  believed  that  the  public  domain 
was  so  vast  that  many  generations  would  pass  away  before  it 
would  be  inhabited,  thus  remaining  a  safety  valve  for  society. 
They  sought  to  induce  the  old  parties  to  adopt  land  reform, 
but  in  case  they  failed,  they  were  prepared  to  form  an  in- 
dependent party.     In  another  connection  an  account  of  the 

'''Die  mo'sment  to  limit  the  amount  of  land  a  man  could  own  or 
inherit  assumed  considerable  importance,  especially  in  Wisconsin,  from 
1848  to  1851.  See  J.  G.  Gregory,  The  Land  Limitation  Movement,  A 
Tri»con*in  Epitode  of  1848-1851.  Parkman  Club  Publicationt,  No.  14, 
pp.  89-113.  Janeaville  Gazette,  quoted  in  Witcomin  Slatetman,  Feb. 
18,  1851.  Horace  Greel^  was  an  enthusiastic  supporter  of  the  measure. 
New  York  Weekly  Tribune,  March  1,  1851. 


Nationdl  Homestead  Agitation 


111 


political  activity  of  the  National  Reformers  is  given.  Let 
it  suffice  in  this  place  to  say  that  within  a  very  short  time 
the  methods  of  these  radicals  were  so  successful  that  inde- 
pendent candidates  and  tickets  were  appealing  for  votes  on 
the  issue  of  land  reform.  A  minute  study  of  the  documents 
and  newspapers  in  New  England  and  the  East  would,  in  all 
nrobability,  show  that  the  work  of  the  land  reformers  had  a 
profound  influence  in  determining  the  selection  of  candidates 
for  state  and  national  offices  and  on  the  political  situation 
generally.*^ 

The  cause  of  land  reform  received  a  great  impetus  when 
Horace  Greeley  with  his  influential  New  York  Tribune  joined 
the  movement.*'  As  a  warm  protectionist  Greeley  through 
The  Log  Cabin  and  Tribune  had  advocated  the  distribution 
of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands,"  but,  in  Oc- 
tober, 1846,  he  became  an  enthusiastic  land  reformer.  Next 
to  a  prohibition  law  he  regarded  the  freedom  of  the  public 
lands  as  the  great  legislative  antidote  to  the  fearful  ten- 
dency of  his  time,  as  he  viewed  it,  to  a  deluge  of  pauperism.'® 
He  did  not  believe  that  land  reform  would  of  itself  counter- 
act this  tendency.,  but  he  did  believe  it  was  a  step  in  the  right 
direction.  That  loafers  and  vagrants  would  not  take  advan- 
tage of  their  opportunity  he  admitted,  but  many  "woodsaw- 

"  Manifestly  It  would  be  unproflUble  to  cite  specific  leferences  to  the 
great  number  of  petitions  that  were  circulated  throughout  the  coun- 
try, which  found  their  way  to  Congress. 

"  Th»  Weekly  Tribuns  for  Oct  18,  1844,  printed  the  "Vote  Yourself 
a  Farm"  circular.  This  is  the  first  menUon  of  the  freedom  of  the 
public  lands  hi  the  rn6«n«  that  I  have  seen. 

"The  Working  Man't  Advocate  for  June  15,  1844,  lamented  the  fact 
that  such  intellects  as  Bryant's  and  Greeley's  should  be  racked  In  the 
discussion  of  the  best  mode  of  proteciting  American  kidustry,  while 
neither  dared  to  allude,  even  by  inuendo,  to  the  all  hnportant  point 
involved  in  the  discussion— the  right  of  American  hidustty  to  the  free 
use  of  the  soiL 

**  aemi-Wttkly  Tribune,  June  9S,  18M. 


lis        The  Political  History  of  the  PubUc  Landt 

yers,  stevedores,  cartmen,  and  laborers,  who  find  the  city 
too  hard  for  them,"  would  be  allured  to  the  free  lands  of  the 
West  and  give  place  to  those  who  needed  places.  "When, 
soon  after  taking  my  seat  [in  Congress],"  °*  he  said,  **I  in- 
troduced a  bill  authorizing  each  landless  citizen  of  the  United 
States  to  occupy  and  appropriate  a  small  allotment  of  the 
National  Domain  free  of  charge,  a  Western  member  wanted 
to  know  why  New  York  should  busy  herself  as  to  the  dis- 
posal of  the  Public  Lands.  I  responded  that  my  interest  in 
the  matter  was  stimulated  by  the  fact  that  I  represented 
more  landless  men  than  any  other  member  on  that  floor." 

Greeley's  influence  in  promoting  the  cause  can  hardly  be 
overemphasized.  Mr.  Rhodes  says  that  many  readers  of  the 
Weekly  Tribune  looked  upon  it  as  a  kind  of  political  bible.*' 
In  the  homes  of  the  wage-earners  of  the  East  and  in  the  set- 
tlers' cabins  of  the  West  it  was  prized  and  cherished."  One. 
Western  editor,"  in  1853,  wrote  that  "the  influence  of  The 
Tribune  upon  public  opinion  is  greater  than  its  conductors 
claim  for  it.  Its  Isms,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  though 
the  people  may  reject  them  at  first,  yet  ripen  into  strength 
insensibly.  A  few  years  since  The  Tribune  commenced  the 
advocacy  of  the  principles  of  Free  Lands  for  the  Landless. 
The  first  bill  presented  upon  that  subject  by  Mr.  Greeley 
to  Congress  was  hooted  out  of  that  body.  But  who  doubts 
what  the  result  would  be,  if  the  people  of  the  whole  nation 
had  the  right  to  vote  upon  the  question  to-day?" 


"  1848.    Greel»'y,  RecolUctiont  of  a  Btuy  Life,  217. 

*  Hhodes,  Lecture*  on  the  American  Civil  War,  30. 

"  Weekly  Triune,  Sept.  20,  1845,  Correspondence  from  Dubuque, 
Iowa  Territory;  The  People's  Journal  (Coudersport,  Pa.),  quoted  in 
Semi-Weekly  Tribune,  May  3,  1853;  Herriott,  Iowa  and  Abraham  lA»r 
coin,  39,  40. 

**8t.  Joseph  Valley  Begitter  (South  Bend,  ':nd.},  quoted  in  B«mi^ 
Weekly  Tribunt,  May  31,  1853. 


National  Homestead  Agitation  118 

Although  the  espousal  of  so  many  radical  principles  by 
the  Tribune  and  the  fact  that  in  general  land  reform  was 
advocated  by  many  of  the  "unreasonable  and  half-cracked," 
raised  up  many  enemies,  yet  these  very  enemies  admitted  that 
Greeley  wielded  a  powerful  influence."  In  one  year— from 
April,  1853,  to  April,  1854— the  circulation  of  the  Weekly 
increased  from  61,000  to  103,000,»«  and  in  1860,  according 
to  Mr.  Rhodes,"^  its  readers  were  estimated  at  half  a  million. 

Another  fact  which  affected  public  sentiment  regarding 
the  disposition  of  the  public  lands  was  the  infusion  of  a  large 
number  of  Germans  and  later  a  considerable  number  of  Scan- 
dinavians into  American  society.  German  papers,  such  as 
Der  Volks-Tribun  and  Sociale  Republik,  both  published  in 
New  York,  show  the  self-consciousness  and  radicalism  of  the 
German  immigrants.  They  complain  of  the  conditions  of  the 
laborers  in  America,  and  lament  the  fact  that,  leaving  their 
native  land  in  order  to  be  free  of  tyranny,  they  find  that  they 
must  pay  tribute  to  capital  here,  too.  However,  they  point 
out  that  the  situation  can  be  remedied  if  steps  are  taken  in 
time  to  reserve  the  public  lands  for  actual  settlers."  Of 
course,  the  very  fact  that  foreigners,  unacquainted  with 
American  conditions  and  speaking  a  strange  tongue,  should 
presume  to  dictate  to  native  Americans  what  policy  their 
government  should  pursue  acted  in  many  cases  as  a  boomer- 
ang to  the  cause  of  land  refomi.'" 

■Linn,  Hornet  OreeUy.  94;  Parton,  Oreelty,  987,  988 1  MU$it$ippi 
Fret  Trader,  Sept  1,  1847;  Keokuk  (la.)  Dupateh.  May  84,  1843. 

"Semi-Weekly  Tribune,  April  11,  18*4. 

"  Leeturet,  SO. 

"Der  Volkt-Tribun,  Feb.  98,  1846. 

"The  German  influence  will  be  discussed  more  fully  in  other  connec- 
tions. Many  peUtions  circulated  by  the  National  Reformers  were 
signed  exclusively  by  Germans,    Houte  Filet,  99th  and  SOth  Congreaaes. 


I 


§ 


CHAPTER   Vin 

THS  BKOINMIMO  OV  KATIONAI.  HOMMTXA])  IMUMLATIOIK 

lEWED  from  one  angle,  the  homestead  agitation  waa 
well-timed  in  that  it  coincided  with  the  iaing  tide  of 
abolitionism  and  efforts  to  prevent  the  spread  of  slavery  into 
the  territories.  Many  men  whose  interest  in  a  homestead 
law  was  wholly  secondary  became  convinced  that  it  was  an 
effective  set-off  against  Southern  agression.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  almost  unbroken  resistance  of  the  Southern  dele 
gation  in  Congress  succeeded  in  preventing  the  enactment 
of  a  law  which  was  sure  to  reduce  their  influence.  Techni- 
cally it  is  impossible  to  posit  a  definite  date  which  marks  the 
beginning  of  homestead  legislation,  but  after  1844  it  be- 
comes a  continuous  factor  in  American  politics. 

Influenced  to  some  extent,  it  is  said,^  by  Evans  who,  in 
1888,  had  begun  his  agitation  for  the  freedom  of  the  public 
lands,'  President  Jackson,  in  his  message  of  1832,'  recom- 
mended a  change  in  our  land  policy  and  embodied  arguments 
which  later  were  quoted  by  the  most  rabid  reformers.  "Our 
true  policy,"  said  he  "[is]  that  the  public  lands  shall  cease 
as  soon  as  possible  to  be  a  source  of  revenue,  and  that  they 
shall  be  sold  to  settlers  in  limited  parcels  at  a  price  barely 
sufficient  to  reimburse  to  the  United  States  the  expense.  .  .  . 
When  we  [consider]  that  it  is  .  .  .  labor  alone  which  gives 
real  value  to  the  lands,  and  that  the  proceeds  arising  from 

» Wellington,  Infiutnet  of  (*•  Public  Lands,  43. 
*Doeum0tUary  Hiitory,  V.,  43,  46,  47. 
*Dec.  4.    Richardson,  Muiagti  and  Paf*r$,  II.,  601. 

114 


Nathmd  HomtHtad  LggMafUm 


Uf 


their  sale  are  diitributed  chiefly  among  States  which  had  not 
originally  any  claim  to  them,  and  which  hare  enjoyed  the 
undivided  emolument  anting  from  the  sale  of  their  own  lands, 
it  cannot  be  expected  that  the  new  States  will  remain  longer 
contented  with  the  present  policy  after  the  payment  of  the 
public  debt."  Here  the  frontier  President  posits  the  funda- 
mental argument  of  the  pioneer.  He  approached  the  prob- 
lem from  a  different  angle  from  Evans  whose  interest  in  the 
West  was  secondary. 

Jackson's  message  bore  no  immediate  legislative  fruit.  The 
idea  of  surrendering  all  financial  profit  from  the  public  do- 
main was  too  radical.  It  took  ten  years  (1841)  before  a 
majority  of  both  houses  of  Congress  could  unite  on  a  general 
pre-emption  measure  giving  a  preference  to  the  actual  settler 
over  other  purchasers  without  any  considerable  sacrifice  of 
revenue.  The  following  year,  184«,  was  enacted  the  Florida 
Occupation  bill  which  made  gratuitous  donations  of  16C 
acres  of  land  in  Florida  to  those  who  would  settle  and  occupy 
the  same  for  four  successive  years,  on  condition  of  erecting 
a  cabin  and  cultivating  and  enclosing  five  acres.*  While  this 
law  and  the  Oregon  bill,"  which  was  introduced  in  the  Senate 
the  following  year,  although  not  enacted  into  law  until  1850, 
applied  the  "homestead"  principle  to  limited  regions  o{  the 
public  domain,  they  were  not  "homestead  laws"  in  the  strict 
sense.    ITiey  were  in  effect  bounty  laws  offering  inducements 

♦Aug.  ♦,  IMS.  atatuttt  at  Largt.  V.,  509  seq.  Five  years'  residence 
in  the  Territoiy  was  required.  The  bUI  passed  the  House  July  18  and 
the  Senate  Aug.  1,  1849.  Cong.  Olobt,  97  Cong.,  9  Seas.,  764-766,  818; 
Meigs,  BiUon,  176,  177. 

'Senator  Linn,  of  Missouri,  introduced  a  bill  granting  640  acres  to 
every  white  male  InhabiUnt  above  18  years  of  age,  160  acres  for  his 
wife,  and  160  acres  for  each  chUd  under  18,  or  who  mi^t  be  born 
within  five  years.  In  Oregon  Territory,  on  condition  of  culUvation  for 
five  consecutive  years.  The  biU  passed  the  Senate  Jan.  4,  I84S.  Com 
Ohib$,  97  Cong.,  S  Sesa.,  119. 


116        The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 


to  men  to  undertake  long  and  hazardous  journeys  to  regions 
where  they  could  defend  their  country  against  the  depreda- 
tions of  Indians  and  encroachments  of  foreign  governments. 
There  was,  to  be  sure,  a  trace  of  this  idea  in  the  various 
homestead  and  pre-emption  bills  in  that  they  offered  induce- 
ments to  go  West,  but  this  was  not  the  primary  considera- 
tion. In  fact,  the  allegations  from  the  opposition  that  the 
homestead  bill  was  a  bounty  brought  forth  vigorous  denials 
from  its  friends  in  the  East  as  well  as  in  the  West. 

The  extraordinary  distinction  of  introducipg  the  first  reso- 
lution instructing  the  committee  on  public  lands  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  passing  a  law  donating  eighty  acres  of 
land  to  every  actual  settler,  "being  the  head  of  a  family,  and 
living  with  the  same,  and  not  now  the  owner  of  land,  and 
who,  through  misfortune  or  otherwise,  is  unable  to  purchase," 
belongs  to  Robert  Smith,  a  representative  from  Illinois.' 
The  resolution  was  introduced  Jan.  4,  184!4!.  Just  one  year 
later,  lacking  one  day,  the  first  petition  was  presented  to 
Congress  asking  that  it  pass,  "with  all  convenient  haste,  a 
law  by  which  every  citizen,  who  may  be  desirous  of  cultivat- 
ing the  earth  for  a  living,  shall  be  enabled  to  enter  upon  the 
public  lands  and  occupy  a  reasonable  sized  farm  thereon, 
free  of  cost."  ^  A  month  later,  Feb.  4,  1845,  the  first  meas- 
ure embodying  the  principle  of  a  general  homestead  bill  was 
proposed  as  an  amendment  to  a  graduation  bill  in  the  House 
by  Thomasson,  of  Kentucky.*  The  amendment  proposed  to 
donate  to  every  actual  settler,  "being  the  head  of  a  family," 
forty  acres.  Oddly  enough,  the  honor  of  possessing  the  title 
of  the  "father  of  the  homestead  bill"  is  disputed  between  two 

*Conp.  Globe,  28  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  106. 

'Jan.  3,  1845.    Ibid.,  28  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  89. 

'Ibid.,  241.  Mr.  Thomasson  said  he  did  not  wish  to  receive  such  a 
revenue  from  the  public  lands  as  would  furnish  an  excuse  for  breaking 
down  the  system  of  protectkm. 


National  Homestead  Legialation 


117 


Southern  men,  Felix  Grundy  McConnell,  of  Alabama,  and 
Andrew  Johnson,  of  Tennessee."  During  the  first  session  of 
the  twenty-ninth  Congress  these  men  introduced  independent 
homestead  bills.  The  right  of  priority  belongs  to  McConnell 
who,  on  January  9,  1846,  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  ask 
leave  to  introduce  a  bill  giving  to  every  white  man  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  acres  of  ground  "providing  he  would  work 
it."  ^"  Three  months  later  Johnson  asked  leave  to  introduce 
a  bill  to  authorize  every  poor  man  in  the  United  States  who 
is  at  the  head  of  a  family  to  enter  one  hundred  and  sixty 
acres  of  public  domain  "without  money  and  without  price.'*  ** 
Mr.  Johnson  lived  to  see  the  enactment  of  such  a  bill  into 
law  after  having  expended  his  best  efforts  in  its  behalf  dur- 
ing a  long  series  of  years,  but  McConnell  within  a  few  months 
died  by  his  own  hand.  His  connection  with  one  of  the  most 
important  legislative  measures  of  the  century  constitutes  the 
only  claim  of  this  handsome,  energetic,  witty,  and  attractive 
man  to  be  remembered  by  the  American  people.  Not  until  six 
years  after  its  introduction  did  the  homestead  bill  come  to  a 
formal  vote  in  either  house.  In  the  meantime  there  were 
other  land  bills  which  claimed  the  consideration  of  our  legr's- 
lators. 

•Mr.  Johnson  claimed  to  be  the  originator  of  the  measure  in  Con- 
gress. See  his  speech  in  the  Senate,  June  14,  1858.  Ibid.,  35  Cong.,  1 
Sess.,  3043  seq. 

''Ibid.,  29  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1T8. 

"March  9,  1846.    Ibid.,  473. 


mji 


CHAPTER   IX 

HOMESTEAD  AND   OTHEE   LAND   MEASUKES:  BOUNTIES,    OEANT8 
TO   EAILWAYS,   AND   GRADUATION 


IW'.' 


WE  have  seen  that  in  the  thirties  the  public  land  ques- 
tion was  complicated  bj  three  propositions  more  or 
less  antagonistic:  pre-emption  and  graduation,  distribution, 
and  cession.  As  our  territory  expanded  and  the  interests  of 
the  country  became  more  varied  the  land  bills  cj  the  speak- 
er's desk  piled  higher  and  higher.  If  the  Congrestiorud 
Globe  contained  nothing  but  the  debates  and  proceedings  on 
the  public  lands,  it  would  occupy  no  small  space  on  the 
shelves  of  libraries.  From  about  the  year  1845  there  were, 
besides  homestead,  three  general  land  measures  before  Con- 
gress, not  to  mention  other  projects  of  a  more  special  nature. 
Of  these  three  general  land  measures — military  land  boun- 
ties, graduation,  and  railway  land  grants — the  former  was 
by  far  the  most  odious  to  the  West  and  to  the  friends  of 
homestead.  Military  bounties  were  no  new  thing,  having 
been  granted  in  colonial  times  and  also  to  soldiers  who  had 
served  in  the  Revolution,  the  War  of  1812,  and  in  campaigns 
against  the  Indians.^  During  and  immediately  after  the 
War 'with  Mexico  Congress  became  exceedingly  generous. 
Indeed,  says  Treat,*  "a  study  of  the  bounty  land  legislation 

*Ford,  Colonial  Precedents,  103  seq.;  Treat,  National  Land  Syiten, 
Chapter  X.  Orfield's  Federal  Land  Orante  to  the  Statei,  etc.,  may  be 
consulted  with  profit  on  questions  treated  in  this  chapter. 

*P.  358.  On  pages  261  and  262  there  is  a  table  showing  the  number 
of  warrants  issued  and  located  to  June  30,  1907.  See  also  Stnatt  Rt- 
portt  {Miicellaneotu),  61  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  No.  856. 

l.'J 


Homestead  and  other  Land  Measuret 


119 


since  1860  leads  one  to  believe  either  that  Congress  had  be- 
come wonderfully  appreciative  of  militarj  service  or  else 
had  become  magnificently  lavish  in  its  grants  of  the  public 
domain."  In  every  Congress  from  1847  until  the  close  of  the 
Civil  War,  but  especially  up  to  1856,  general  bounty  bills 
were  up,  and  in  that  period  four  of  them  became  laws — 
those  of  1847,»  I860,*  1862,»  and  1855'.« 

The  policy  of  land  bounties  to  soldiers  appealed  to  two 
important  elements  of  population :  soldiers  and  speculators. 
The  soldiers  wielded  a  powerful  influence  over  congressmen 
through  the  ballot  box  while  the  speculators  employed  the 
more  efl^ective  method  of  stuffing  their  pocket  books.  The 
line-up  on  land  measures  cannot  be  understood  without  peep- 
ing into  the  coat-rooms,  comu«*ttee-rooms,  and  hotel  lobbies 
and  seeing  the  process  of  log-rolling.  "Sir,  the  supporters 
of  these  [land]  bills  are  from  all  sections  and  parties,"  said 
Representative  Cumback,  of  Indiana.'  .  .  .  "There  is  not 
one  of  these  bills  that  could  get  through  this  House  were  it 
not  pulled  by  one  that  has  already  got  through,  and  shoved 
by  another  that  is  behind  it.  One  State  votes  for  the  grants 
for  all  the  others,  that  all  the  others  may  vote  for  her  grant ; 
and  by  this  sort  of  combination  we  have  voted  away  mil- 
lions of  acres  of  the  public  lands."  Not  only  was  this  in- 
sidious practice  applied  to  land  bills,  but  to  other  bills  as 
well:  tariff'  bills,  appropriation  bills,  bankrupt  bills,  and 
whatnot.  Some  voted  for  certain  measures  as  the  lesser  of 
evils.  For  example,  congressmen  from  the  old  States  sup- 
ported military  bounties  as  a  counter  proposition  to  home- 
stead and  grants  to  railways  because  the  former  would  with- 

*Feb.  11.    atatutei  at  Large,  IX.,  12S  seq. 

•Sept.  28.    Ibid.,  IX.,  420,  531. 

•March  «.    76i<l.,  X.,  314. 

•Mays.    /6W..  X.,701. 

'May  88,  18M.    Cong.  Oloh;  34  Cong,  1  Sess..  1331. 


If 0       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landt 

draw  their  population  and  increase  immigration  and  the 
latter  would  aid  in  the  further  development  of  new  sections. 
Of  course,  not  all  speeches  in  Congress  can  be  taken  at  face 
value.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  many  sincerely  believed 
that  a  homestead  law  would  play  into  the  hands  of  specu- 
lators and  would  be  abused  more  than  a  bounty  law,  but  it 
does  not  require  much  imagination  to  picture  a  "friend  of  the 
common  people  and  the  gallant  defenders  of  the  flag"  mak- 
ing a  plea  for  a  bounty  law  while  a  horde  of  specula- 
tors were  waiting  outside  to  stuff  his  pockets  with  war- 
rants. 

There  was  more  opposition  to  bounties  in  the  West  than 
in  any  other  section  of  the  country.  Naturally  the  settlers 
suffered  from  the  operations  of  land  speculators  who  had 
purchased  warrants  for  a  song  from  soldiers  who  either  had 
no  inclination  to  go  West  or  were  unable  to  do  so.  Senator 
Jones  of  Iowa,  declared,  in  1856,*  that  his  State  had  been 
"literally  shingled  over  with  land  warrants  given  to  the  Wall 
Street  and  other  speculators,  and  bounty  land  warrants  in 
this  country."  The  fact  that  bounties  deprived  the  public 
land  States  of  a  percentage  of  the  land  fund  under  the  ex- 
isting laws,  and  diminished  the  value  of  school  lands,  caused 
much  ill  feeling."    The  friends  of  railway  land  grants  in  the 

*  April  16.  Cong.  Olobe,  S4  C<mg.,  I  Sess.,  927.  See  also  speeches  of 
Pugh,  of  Ohio,  April  16,  1856.  Ibid.,  924-936;  Sevier,  of  Arkansas,  Jan. 
5,  1848.  Ibid.,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  110;  Vinton,  of  Ohio,  Feb.  8,  1846. 
Ibid.,  314;  Westcott,  of  Florida,  Jan.  12,  1849.  Ibid.,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess., 
231,  232;  Durkee,  of  Wisconsin,  June  24,  1850.  Ibid.,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
1275;  Whitcomb,  of  Indiana,  Aug.  29,  1850.  Ibid.,  1708.  Compare  the 
speeches  of  Senator  Brodhead,  of  Pennsylvania,  April  16,  1856  {Cong. 
Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  928)  and  Dawson,  of  Georgia,  Jan.  22,  1855 
{Ibid.,  33  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  347)  with  the  speeches  of  Western  congressmen. 

'Speeches  of  Senator  Stuart,  of  Michigan,  Jan.  22,  1855,  and  Harlan, 
of  Iowa,  Feb.  11,  1856.  Cong.  QUtbe,  22  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  347  seq.,  and 
Ibid.,  34  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Ap.  80,  81. 


Homeatead  and  other  Land  Mea$ure» 


Ifl 


East  and  West,  but  especially  in  the  West,  were  anxious  to 
expedite  their  measures  because  they  feared  that  the  public 
lands  on  the  lines  of  prospective  railroads  would  be  located 
by  the  holders  of  land  warrants."  Had  the  land  warrants 
not  been  assignable,  the  evil  would  not  have  been  so  great. 
If  there  had  been  provisions  in  the  bills  requiring  the  sol- 
diers to  settle  on  the  lands  in  order  to  secure  the  benefit  of 
the  warrants,  they  would  have  been  of  little  use  to  specu- 
lators and,  indeed,  to  the  soldiers  themselves."  The  fact 
that  bounties  reduced  the  income  from  the  public  lands  led 
some  low  tariff  men  to  oppose  them  because  they  would  make 
a  high  tariff  necessary.** 

It  would  be  entirely  erroneous  to  assert  that  all  the  friends 
of  homestead  were  hostile  to  military  bounties,  or  that  all 
the  enemies  of  *  naestead  were  the  friends  of  bounties;" 
but  it  is  certainly  true  that  as  the  lines  between  the  enemies 
and  friends  of  homestead  grew  taut,  these  same  lines  tended 
to  separate  the  enemies  and  friends  of  military  bounties. 
The  act  of  1847  granting  bounties  to  soldiers  in  the  Mexican 
War  passed  the  House  of  Representatives  by  the  overwhelm- 
ing vote  of  171  to  18,"  and  in  the  Senate,  as  amended,  the 
bill  received  33  votes  in  favor  to  3  against  on  its  third  read- 

» Speech  of  Jones,  of  Iowa,  May  9,  18M.  Ibid.,  S4  Cong.,  1  Sen, 
1166,  1167. 

"Speeches  of  Brown,  of  Mississippi,  May  8,  1848.  Ibid.,  SO  Cong, 
1  Sess.,  732,  733;  Mason,  of  Virginia,  Aug.  29,  1840.  Ibid.,  SI  Cong, 
1  Sess.,  1707;  Butler,  of  South  Carolina.    Ibid.,  1709. 

"Speech  of  CoUemer,  of  Vermont,  May  8,  1848.  Ibid,  SO  Cong, 
1  Sess.,  733-735. 

"This  is  evident  from  the  speeches  in  Congress  on  various  occasions. 
See  especially  Resolutions  of  Legislatures  of  Louisiana,  Mississippi, 
Michigan,  and  California,  in  1840,  in  favor  of  bounties.  B0nat0  Miietl- 
laneoiu  Documenti,  31  Cong,  1  Sess.,  No.  83,  93,  94,  124.  See  also  de- 
bate in  House  of  Representatives,  May  3,  1848.  Cong.  Olob;  SO  C<mg, 
1  Sess.,  717-729. 

"Jan.  97.    Ibid.,  99  Cong.,  9  Sess,  973. 


1X2        The  Political  History  of  the  PubUc  Landa 

ing.^"  But  the  bill  making  land  warrants  assignable  In  18S2 
met  a  most  determined  opposition  from  the  homestead  men.** 
The  contest  between  the  people  who  favored  land  grants 
to  railways  and  those  who  were  attached  to  the  homestead 
measure  was  not  so  clean-cut.  Both  propositions  had  much 
in  common  and  for  that  reason  had  friends  and  opponents  in 
common.*'  In  theory,  there  was  considerable  difference. 
Homestead  was  an  out  and  out  donation  of  the  lands,  while 
a  grant  of  lands  to  railways  was  supposed  to  reimburse  the 
government  by  enabling  it  to  secure  a  higher  price  for  the 
sections  retained  because  of  their  situation  in  proximity  to 
a  railway.**  But  the  latter  argument  was  not  tenable  to 
many.  It  was  objected  that  by  charging  $2.50  for  lands 
foimerly  $1.25  per  acre  the  people  were  taxed  for  the  benefit 
of  the  railways.     To  put  it  in  the  words  of  an  opponent, 

"Jan.  30.    Cong.  Olobe,  39  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  395. 

I'Feb.  36  and  37.  Ibid.,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  639,  640,  649.  Cf.  speech 
of  Andrew  Johnson,  Jan.  33,  I85I.  Ibid.,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  319,  313; 
N.  F.  Weekly  Tribune,  Jan.  11,  1851;  Julian,  Political  Reeolleetioni,  9H; 
Julian's  speech,  Jan.  39,  1851.    Julian,  Speechet,  50  seq. 

"Haney's  Congreitional  Hittory  of  Bailwayi  to  1850,  pp.  373-376, 
denies  that  the  land  grant  and  homestead  policies  were  in  conflict.  The 
movements  for  land  donations  and  free  land  to  settlers,  he  says,  went 
hand  in  hand.  Both  grew  with  the  growth  of  the  West.  He  found  '^o 
evidence  of  any  great  or  effective  opposition."  Sanborn's  Congreesional 
Oranti  of  Land  in  Aid  of  Railways  takes  the  opposite  view  (pp.  46-49). 
If  by  "effective  opposition"  Mr.  Haney  means  effective  in  preventing 
the  enactment  of  land  grant  laws,  he  is  correct,  but  the  fact  that  he 
has  limited  his  investigation  to  the  "Congressional  history"  of  land 
grants  has  caused  him  to  make  this  misleading  statement.  The  news- 
papers and  other  sources  show  unmistakably  that  there  was  "great" 
and  also  "effective"  opposition  to  land  grants  to  railways  on  the  part 
of  the  homestead  advocates  led  by  men  like  Greeley,  Evans,  and  Julian. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  votes  in  Congress  are  often  misleading 
because  of  log-rolling,  and  land  grant  and  homestead  bills  offered  splen- 
did opportunities. 

"Speech  of  Cobb,  of  Alabama,  April  j23,  1858.  Cong.  Globe,  S5 
Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1740-1743. 


Homestead  and  other  Land  Measures 


lU 


agriculture  was  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  capitalists  who  *'toil 
not,  neither  do  they  spin."  *'  To  those  pioneers  who  consid- 
ered that  $1.S5  per  acre  was  too  high  the  idea  of  paying 
double  that  amount  to  corpoiations  "who  have  neither  bodies 
to  die  or  souls  to  damn"  was  exceedingly  unpalatable. '** 
The  great  majority  of  the  pioneers,*^  the  Free  Soilers,*'  the 
"National  Reformers,"  ^"  using  that  term  in  its  most  in- 
clusive sense,  and  a  considerable  number  of  friends  and 
enemies  of  homestead  in  all  sections  of  the  country  '*  saw 
the  danger  in  a  policy  which  would  build  up  a  great  landed 
interest  whose  great  influence  would  be  used  in  antagonism 
to  the  common  welfare  and  in  debauching  their  legislative 
bodies.  While  it  is  true  that  many  Western  settlers  believed 
in  stimulating  railway  construction  because  it  would  give 
increased  market  facilities  and  enhance  the  value  of  their 
land,^"  those  who  took  issue  with  them  insisted  that  the  rail- 
way companies  owning  huge  tracts  of  land  would  oppose  a 
homestead  law.  The  better  way  was  to  build  up  the  West  by 
granting  lands  to  settlers  and  the  railways  would  follow  as 


"Speech  of  Jones,  of  Tennessee,  May  28,  1856.  Ibid.,  34  Cong.,  1 
Sess.,  1329. 

**  Speech  of  Cumback,  of  Indiana,  May  98, 1856.    Ibid.,  1330,  1331. 

"  Lane,  of  Indiana,  March  8,  1844.  Ibid.,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  574,  576; 
Iowa  Statt  Gazette,  March  82,  1854. 

"Julian,  of  Indiana,  Sept  20,  1850,  and  Jan.  29,  1841.  Julian,  BeeoU 
lectioM,  99;  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  Ap.  135;  Gerritt  Smith, 
of  New  York,  March  7,  1844.    Ibid..  S3  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  467. 

"Working  Man'e  Advocate,  March  1,  1844;  Resolutions  adopted  by 
the  Ninth  Industrial  Congress  at  Baltimore,  June  8,  1844.  Daily  True 
American  (Trenton,  N.  J.),  June  9,  1844;  New  York  Weekly  Tribune, 
March  20  and  July  31,  1842,  and  Jan.  8,  1843. 

"Cleveland,  of  Connecticut,  April  1,  1842.  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  Ap.  574;  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  April  17,  1858.  Ibid.,  35  Cong.,  1 
Sess.,  1646,  1647. 

»Iowa  Republican  (Iowa  City),  Feb.  4,  1854;  speech  of  Hall,  of  Mis- 
souri, April  20,  1852.    Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Ap.  439. 


IM       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lande 

a  matter  of  course.*'  Horace  Greeley,"  National  Reformer 
and  friend  of  the  West,  and  Gerritt  Smith,**  Free  Soiler  and 
philanthropist,  could  see  no  need  of  "hiring  or  bribing"  cap- 
italists to  construct  railways  which  would  pay  dividends  of 
ten  to  twenty  per  cent.  If  the  principle  of  free  lands  were 
established,  they  believed  that  ample  capital  would  be  re- 
leased from  land  speculation  to  construct  any  number  of 
railways.  "Booming"  Western  towns,  in  their  intense  rivalry 
for  connection  with  Eastern  railroads,  kept  their  congress- 
men on  the  alert  for  railway  land  grants.**  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  a  thoroughly  Western  man,  was  the  author  of  both 
homestead  ^^  and  land  grant  bills.'^  It  is  evident  that  the 
attitude  of  Western  men  toward  land  grants  was  by  no  means 
uniform;  it  depended  upon  where  they  happened  to  be  lo- 
cated or  upon  their  financial  condition.  If  they  had  bank 
accounts,  they  were  as  anxious  as  any  Eat>^ern  speculator  to 
invest  in  land  along  the  line  of  a  projected  railroad  in  order 
to  "get  the  raise."  But  quite  frequently  when  they  found 
that  they  had  been  outwitted  by  a  "promoter"  or  by  the 
chicanery  of  the  railroad  company  they  became  just  as 
hostile  toward  land  grants  and  railroads  as  the  grangers 
of  the  seventies. 

The  situation  in  the  East  and  the  South  was  somewhat 


"Dunham,  of  Indiana,  April  6,  1853.  Ibid.,  Ap.  408.  Feb.  20,  1847, 
Senator  Dix  presented  a  petition  from  citlsens  of  New  Yorlc  praying 
that  no  proposition  appropriating  public  land  for  the  construction  of  a 
railway  to  the  Pacific  may  receive  the  sanction  of  Congress.  Dix  ex- 
plained that  this  petition,  which  was  thirty  feet  in  length,  prayed  that 
the  public  lands  should  be  free  for  settlement  by  any  citizen  who  would 
occupy  and  cultivate  them.    Cong.  Olobt,  39  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  462. 

'N.  Y.  Weekly  Tribune,  March  20  and  July  31,  1853. 

'Cong.  Globe,  38  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  567. 

'Minnesota  Pioneer,  Jan.  22,  1853. 

"  Dec.  24,  1849.    Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  75. 

*>AprU  29,  1850.    Ibid..  844  seq. 


Homeitead  and  other  Land  Meaturet 


Its 


similar  to  that  in  the  West.  The  element  which  feared  the 
competition  of  the  West  and  saw  the  danger  in  the  great 
influx  of  foreigners  who  would  find  it  comparatively  easy  to 
find  homes  on  cheap  lands  opposed  government  aid  to  rail- 
ways as  strongly  as  homestead.'*  Eastern  capital  invested 
in  railways  and  manufacturing  was  naturally  interested  in 
the  development  of  the  West  and  in  laws  which  would  stimu- 
late Western  prosperity."  Capital  invested  in  railroad 
lands,  however,  usually  opposed  a  homestead  law  because  it 
feared  that  free  land  would  lower  the  price  of  their  lands. 
Daniel  Webster,  who  was  by  no  means  a  persecutor  of  the 
capitalist,  represents  one  type  of  Easterner  who  found  noth- 
ing in  the  land  grant  policy  inconsistent  with  homestead." 

So  far  as  the  attitude  of  tl  e  South  toward  the  homestead 
measure  is  concerned,  it  mattered  little  what  it  thought  about 
railway  grants,  because  it  was  almost  a  unit  against  home- 
stead." Some  professed  to  see  a  difference  between  them  in 
that  homestead  granted  lands  without  any  equivalent,  while 
granting  lands  to  rrilways  enhanced  the  value  of  lands  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  roads.'"  Curiously  enough,  Andrew  Johnson, 
a  strict  constructionist,  was  opposed  to  the  Pacific  Railroad 
bill  because  he  deemed  it  unconstitutional  and  unwise,  while 
Jefferson  Davis  was  a  warm  supporter  of  it,  giving  as  one  of 

"Perkins,  of  New  York,  Jan.  17,  1855.  Ihid.,  S3  Ckmg.,  9  Seas.,  986 1 
Dawson,  of  Georgia,  Jan.  99,  1855.    Ibid.,  347. 

"Wilson,  of  Massacliusetts,  Ma^  9,  1856.  Ibid.,  34  Cong.,  I  Sess., 
1170.  1171. 

**  Letter  of  Webster  to  David  A.  Neale  read  at  a  dinner  given  by  the 
managers  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railway  to  the  Illinois  delegation  in 
Congress.  Letter  dated  March  19,  1859.  Printed  in  M»mphi»  DaU]f 
Eagle  and  Enquinr,  April  1,  1859. 

"After  1859,  roughly  speaking. 

"Speech  of  Freeman,  of  Mississippi,  Aug.  IS,  1859.  Cong.  OUtbt,  S9 
Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Ap.  939;  speech  of  Morse,  of  Louisiana,  July  96,  185a 
IbUL,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1461. 


It6       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landt 

his  reasons  that  it  would  strengthen  the  bonds  of  union." 
On  the  Pacific  Railway  the  line-up  was  almost  wholly  dif- 
ferent from  that  on  the  policy  of  land  grants  in  general.** 
Here  the  South  was  practicably  a  unit  in  opposition,  not  be- 
cause Southern  members  of  Congress  cherished  constitutional 
scruples  or  doubted  the  expediency  of  the  policy  of  govern- 
ment aid  to  railways,  but  because  the  matter  resolved  itself 
into  a  question  of  routes.  Whether  grants  of  land  were  to 
be  made  to  a  Southern  Pacific  or  a  Central  Pacific  road  was 
the  bone  of  contention. 

That  the  system  of  land  grants  to  railways  was  a  serious 
obstacle  to  the  enactment  of  a  homestead  law  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  If  the  question  be  asked  why,  in  the  face  of  an 
overwhelming  sentiment  in  the  West  and  strong  pressure  in 
the  East  in  its  favor,  a  homestead  law  was  not  placed  on  the 
statutes  until  186S,  the  answer  must  be  that  the  force  was 
neutralized  by  the  opposition  of  those  who  wanted  land  war- 
rants and  grants  to  railways  working  in  combination  with 
the  Southern  slaveocracy.*' 

The  most  treacherous  enemy  of  the  homestead  measure 
was  the  so-called  graduation  bill.  A  properly  guarded  grad- 
uation law  in  some  respects  would  have  been  beneficial  to  the 
West,  but  most  of  the  bills  and  the  law  as  finally  enacted  in 
1854  included  many  objectional  elements.  The  fact  that  the 
scheme  claimed  the  authorship  of  Senator  Benton  commended 
itself  to  many  in  the  West.  Under  the  pre-emption  law  set- 
tlers chose  the  most  fertile  and  best  situated  lands.     This 

"  Speech  of  Johnson  on  Pacific  Railway  bill  in  the  Senate  and  Davis's 
rejoinder,  Jan.  9S,  1859.    Cong,  Olobe,  35  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  579  seq. 

"See  vote  in  the  Senate  to  postpone  the  Pacific  Railway  bill,  April 
17,  1858.    Ibid..  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1647. 

"See  table  showing  land  grants  to  Individuals  and  to  states  and  cor- 
porations for  internal  improvements  in  Hart's  Pr<Ktieal  Ettagi  on 
American  Oovemment,  S55-357,  and  Orfield's  Ftdtral  Land  OranU,  etc. 


Homeatead  and  other  Land  Metuurti 


va 


wa«  detrimental  to  both  the  Weat  and  the  federal  goyern- 
ment  because  the  public  lands  were  "culled"  and  ai  a  result 
much  land  remained  unsold.  For  this  reason  every  public 
land  State  had  a  large  area  of  untaxable  and  unimproved 
land  and  the  government  was  forced  to  maintain  land  offices 
which  were  a  source  of  expense  without  yielding  an  adequate 
return.  By  a  systematic  graduation  of  the  public  lands 
Benton  believed  that  the  practice  of  settlers  from  the  sea- 
board States  to  pass  through  the  older  public  land  States 
and  the  tendency  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  latter  States  to 
leave  for  newer  portions  of  the  West  would  be  overcome.  He 
introduced  his  first  bill  in  May,  18£6.  This  proposed  to 
reduce  gradually  the  prices  according  to  the  number  of  years 
lands  remained  unsold  until  the  price  of  twenty-five  cents  per 
acre  was  reached  after  which  they  were  to  be  given  away  in 
lots  of  eighty  acres.*"  Benton  kept  the  bill  before  Congress 
year  after  year,  supporting  it  with  the  same  vigor  that  he 
did  his  pre-emption  bill.  In  1840  it  passed  the  Senate  with 
but  eight  votes  in  the  negative,**  but  the  House  refused  to 
take  it  up.  The  intense  struggle  over  distribution  in  the 
years  immediately  following  and  the  enactment  of  the  pre- 
emption law  pushed  graduation  aside  until  1844.  From  this 
time  it  became  increasingly  important  until  its  enactment 
into  law  ten  years  later. 

The  avowed  purpose  of  the  graduation  law  varied  accord- 
ing to  the  section  of  the  country  from  which  its  adherents 
hailed.  The  South  down  to  about  1850  *^  and  especially  the 
Southwest  was  generally  favorable  to  it ;  certainly  it  was  far 
more  acceptable  to  that  region  than  a  homestead  law.*' 

**  Meigs,  Benton,  165,  166. 

"  April  24,  1840.    Cong.  Olobt.  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  355. 

**See  below. 

*  Resolution  of  Legislature  of  Mississippi,  Jan.  39,  1846.  8»not0 
Doewmtntt,  39  Cong,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  No.  ISO;  Resolution  of  Leg.  of 


Its       Th4  PoUHcal  History  of  ih*  PubUe  Lands 

Naturally  there  was  keen  competition  between  the  Soufch- 
weit  and  the  Northwest  for  lettlcrs  and,  besides,  the 
*'culling"  process,  due  to  the  wasteful  plantation  system,  was 
practiced  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  in  the  Northwest 
where  the  quality  of  the  land  was  more  uniform  and  smaller 
farms  were  the  rule.^^  The  owners  of  large  plantations  were 
anxious  to  purchase  at  low  prices  the  less  productive  cotton 
lands  when  the  old  lands  were  "wearing  out."  President 
Polk,*'  a  representative  of  the  Southern  upland  stock,  Rob- 
ert J.  Walker,"  and  W.  R.  W.  Cobb,*'  spokesmen  for  the 
**Cotton  Kingdom,"  were  all  in  favor  of  graduation. 

Unlike  the  newer  portions  of  the  "Cotton  Kingdom,"  the 
amount  of  government  land  in  the  East  was  negligible  and  in 
this  section  the  sentiment  was  generally  hostile  to  gradua- 
tion.**    The  land  reformers,  as  represented  by  Greeley,  were 

Arkansas,  Nov.  95,  1846.  Ibid.,  99  Cong.,  9  Seas.,  Doc.  No.  99;  Res. 
of  Leg.  of  Alabama.  Cong.  Olob»,  99  Cong.,  1  Seu.,  467;  Res.  of  Leg. 
of  Missouri,  Jan.  7,  1846.  8tn.  Doe.,  99  Cong.,  9  Seas.,  Doc.  Na  95; 
Th0  Mittiiippian,  Dec.  97,  1843;  Louiiiana  Cowitr,  Aug.  15.  1854;  Tkt 
Tnta  Democrat  (Little  Rock,  Ark.),  Aug.  30,  1854;  Calhoun's  speedi, 
June  99,  1846.    CoHg.  Olob;  99  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1040;  also  1057,  1058. 

**  Speech  of  Chapman,  of  Alabama,  Jan.  9,  1845.  Cong.  Olob*,  98 
Cong.,  9  Sess.,  83. 

*  Annual  messages,  1845  and  1846.  Richardson,  Meuaget  and  For 
p»r$,  IV.,  408,  409,  497,  503. 

"Btporte  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treatury  (Dec.  3,  1845),  V.,  16, 
17;  also  VI.,  15,  131,  194,  195. 

"  Cobb  was  a  representative  in  Congress  from  Alabama,  a  state  which 
had  considerable  unsold  land. 

''The  votes  and  speeclies  in  Congress  do  not  entirely  bear  out  this 
statement,  but  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  many  Eastern  congress- 
men voted  for  graduation  through  log-rolling  and  because  some  thought 
it  preferable  to  homestead.  Outside  of  the  land  speculators  and  some 
who  believed  that  graduation  would  be  a  good  thing  for  the  West  (Ham- 
lin, of  Maine.  Cong.  Globe,  99  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1079),  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  the  incentive  to  migration  which  cheap  lands  would  give  turned  the 
East  away  from  it    Ibid.,  98  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  69  seq. 


Homgtttad  and  other  Land  Meatwn 


119 


moil  emphatically  againit  graduation/*  They  made  no 
complaint  that  the  minimum  price  of  $1.SS  per  acre  was  too 
high :  if  landi  were  to  be  Bold,  they  favored  a  higher  mini- 
mum. According  to  Greeley,  the  graduation  process  uh''ercd 
a  direct  bounty  to  thriftlessness  and  improvidence.  An  in- 
dustrious man,  he  maintained,  would  settle  on  a  piece  of 
land,  improve  it,  and  secure  title  as  soon  as  possible,  while 
the  dishonest  or  shiftless  would  manage  to  exist  and  when 
the  next  lower  scale  of  prices  went  into  effect  he  would  make 
entry.  Payments  would  be  delayed  to  the  eleventh  ..our. 
Besides  this  evil,  Greeley  declared  the  law  would  be  a  great 
boon  to  the  speculator.  An  "actual  settler"  might  buy  a 
portion  of  land,  and  obtain  a  deed  for  it,  and  there  was 
nothing  to  hinder  him  from  selling  it  at  an  advance  of  from 
five  to  twenty-five  dollars  to  a  speculator.  The  result,  he 
concluded,  would  be  an  enormous  aggregation  of  land  in  a 
few  hands  at  low  prices."^ 

Graduation  did  not  appeal  to  the  pioneer  West;  at  least 
the  law  as  enacted  did  not.  Certainly  it  could  not  take  the 
place  of  homestead.  If  the  pioneer  who  endured  a  frontier 
life  had  to  pay  $1.«6  per  acre  for  his  land,  he  saw  no  reason 
wiiy  those  who  came  later  and  reaped  the  benefit  of  his  im- 
provements and  found  the  comforts  of  civilization  could  not 
afford  to  pay  the  same  price  for  a  second  choice.'*  It  was 
to  the  earliest  settler  that  the  price  should  be  reduced. 
Furthermore,  in  his  opinion  it  was  to  the  interest  of  the 
country  that  labor  should  be  bestowed  on  the  best  and  most 

-  Wukly  Tribune.  July  84,  ISM;  Jan.  94,  1829;  Jan.  1,  1853;  D*r 
Volk$-Trib%n.  July  9«.  1846. 

**  Wetkly  TribuM,  Dec.  95,  1847. 

»  "An  old  Pioneer"  to  editor.  Greenville,  Ills.  August,  1854.  Daily 
Mi$$ouri  Republican,  Aug.  99,  1854.  See  also  letter  of  John  Wilson, 
Conunissioner  of  General  I^nd  Office,  to  Rep.  Disney,  of  Ohio,  March 
29,  1854.    Cong.  Olobt,  33  Cong,  1  Sess,  906. 


m 


180        The  Political  His  tori/  of  the  PubUc  Landa 


productive  lands,  and  if  a  homestead  law  were  in  operation, 
all  the  lands  would  be  reserved  free  of  charge  to  the  actual 
settler  who  would  cultivate  them  when  he  found  it  profitable 
to  do  so." 

The  "old"  Western  States? — Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  for 
example — held  a  different  view.  Here,  as  we  have  intimated, 
there  were  extensive  tracts  of  "culled  out"  and  untaxed 
lands,  corresponding  in  a  rough  way  to  the  abandoned  farms 
in  the  East  at  the  present  time.  A  system  of  graduation, 
it  was  thought,  would  do  away  with  this  problem  by  establish- 
ing a  just  distinction  between  the  various  qualities  of  land."' 
These  '-onsidrirations,  of  course,  appealed  to  a  certain  class 
of  pioi  ••»  ■•  as  well,  just  as  some  of  them  favored  land  war- 
rants b  -cause  with  a  little  capital  they  could  buy  land  for 
speculation.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  graduation  law  of 
1854  passed  largely  by  the  aid  of  Western  votes. 

There  was  much  to  be  said  in  opposition  to  graduation 
from  many  points  of  view.°*  From  the  fact  that  public 
lands  remained  unsold  for  several  years  it  did  not  necessarily 
follow  that  they  were  of  poor  quality ;  their  value  depended 
upon  demand  and  supply.     So  long  as  the  government  con- 

"See  speech  of  Vinton,  of  Ohio,  Dec.  11,  1844.  Cong.  Olobe,  98  Cong., 
3  Sess.,  33. 

"Resolution  of  the  Legislature  of  Indiana,  1846.  Senate  Docutnente, 
39  Cong.,  1  Sess..-  No.  188;  Resolution  of  the  Legislature  of  Illinois, 
1847.  Cong.  Olobe,  39  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  334;  Resolution  of  the  Legislature 
of  Ohio,  1850.  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  No. 
77;  speeches  of  Sample  and  Davis,  of  Indiana,  Dec.  11,  1844.  Cong. 
Globe,  38  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  33;  Smith,  of  Illinois,  Dec.  37,  1844.  Ibid., 
69  seq. 

"In  this  paragraph  I  am  following  quite  closely  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  public  lands  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1848,  the 
chairmaii  of  which  was  Jacob  Collamer,  of  Vermont.  TUs  document 
is  well  worth  reading.  U.  S.  House  Reports,  SO  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  No.  7SS. 
See  also  CoUamer's  speech,  Dec.  11,  1844.  Cong.  Olobe,  38  Cong.,  9 
Sess.,  31 ;  N.  Y.  Weeklg  Tribune,  Dec.  13,  1845. 


Homestead  and  other  Land  Measure$ 


181 


tinued  to  open  new  lands  the  public  domain  was  bound  to  be 
"culled."  It  was  not  proposed  to  limit  graduation  to  poor 
land  but  all  land  unsold  after  a  term  of  years  was  included. 
This  would  reduce  the  price  of  both  good  and  bad  land.  A 
scale  of  price  on  the  basis  of  time  was  not  fine  enough.  It 
is  also  questionable  whether  graduation  was  of  much  advan- 
tage to  the  poor  man.  He  could  hardly  afl  .>rd  to  cultivate 
poor  land  while  his  rich  neighbor  undersold  liiin  by  raising 
his  produce  on  b<  i;ter  land.  He  would  do  better  by  investing 
his  savings  on  a  small  tract  of  good  land  at  a  higher  price. 
It  was  also  feared  that  graduation  would  do  injustice  to 
land-holders  by  reducing  the  value  of  all  real  estate.  Boiling 
down  the  arguments  against  graduation  into  one,  the  length 
of  time  lands  had  been  in  the  market  was  no  criterion  of  their 
value.  In  Illinois,  to  take  a  specific  instance,  prairie  lands 
remained  practically  »in touched  until  about  1845  and  it  was 
only  after  the  wooded  tracts  had  been  occupied  that  the 
prairie  was  broken.  As  the  population  increased  what  were 
regarded  as  refuse  lands  became  productive  and  valuable. 


i 


CHAPTER    X 

THE    POT.ITICAI.    AND    LEGISLATIVE    HISTOBY    OF     HOMESTEAD, 

1844-1852 


rilHE  decade  of  the  forties  has  been  called  the  "hot  air" 
■■•  period  of  American  history.  Accepting  this  character- 
ization with  a  grain  of  salt,  it  is  true  that  it  was  a  time  of 
agitation  and  upheaval.  The  atmosphere  was  charged  with 
"isms";  population  was  fluid;  immigration  was  increasing; 
the  slavery  agitation  was  raising  its  ugly  head ;  class  feeling 
was  growing;  Western  society  was  forming.  The  home- 
stead movement  was  gaining  momentum,  but  up  to  the  year 
1850  it  had  few  friends  in  Congress ;  it  had  not  yet  been  ac- 
corded the  honor  of  a  rejection  by  a  yea  and  nay  vote  in 
either  house.  Except  in  the  West  and  among  certain  classes 
in  other  sections,  the  more  influential  people  and  the  major- 
ity of  newspapers  placed  it  in  the  category  of  those  new- 
fangled notions  which  find  favor  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
are  on  the  fringe  of  lunacy.^  There  were,  however,  men  of 
vision  who  could  find  comfort  in  Plutarch's  observation  that 
"there  is  no  beginning  so  mean,  which  continued  application 
will  not  make  considerable  and  that  despising  a  danger  at 
first,  will  mnke  it  at  last  irresistible."  They  could  not  fore- 
see the  overwhelming  election  of  Franklin  Pierce  in  185S, 
resulting  in  the  domination  of  the  national  government  by 
the  "Cotton  Kingdom"  for  the  next  eight  years  and  the 
speedy  death  of  the  Whig  party ;  neither  was  it  possible  to 

*N.  T.  Wtkly  TribwM,  Dec.  99,  IM9. 


The  Political  and  Legislative  History  188 

predict  the  intense  sectionalism  which  followed  these  read- 
justments, solidifying  sentiment  in  th.  North  and  West  in 
favor  of  a  homestead  law  as  a  buffer  against  Southern  en- 
croachments. 

The  year  1862  is  a  convenient  subdivision  in  the  study  of 
the  public  lands.  The  fact  that  the  homestead  bill  came  to 
a  vote  for  the  first  time  in  the  House  of  Representatives  is  in 
itself  of  sufficient  importance  to  give  it  a  mark  of  distinc- 
tion ;  but  it  also  marked  the  beginning  of  an  extensive  agita- 
tion for  land  grants  to  railways.^  A  large  number  of  home- 
stead petitions  had  poured  into  Washington  but,  as  usual, 
bills  which  had  no  effective  lobbyist  stood  little  chance  in 
competition  with  those  that  had.  In  1861,  Andrew  John- 
son »  made  a  speech  in  Congress  in  which  he  said  that  since 
the  beginning  of  the  thirty-first  Congress  *  sixty-five  bills  had 
been  introduced  to  divide  the  public  lands  amongst  canals, 
corporations,  lunatic  asylums,  etc.  Very  little  had  been  said 
about  the  homestead  measure  since  it  was  first  introduced, 
he  continued,  but  it  had  been  making  its  way  steadily  in  the 
public  mind,  and  from  the  vast  number  of  letters  he  had  re- 
ceived on  the  subject,  he  was  satisfied  that  the  country  was 
laying  hold  on  it. 

In  order  to  understand  what  happened  in  Congress  iu 
1852,  we  must  take  a  survey  of  the  course  of  events  which 
led  up  to  this  year,  for,  as  Professor  Turner  writes,"  'Ve 
cannot  understand  the  land  question  without  seeing  its  rela- 
tions to  the  struggle  of  sections  and  classes  bidding  against 
each  other  and  finding  in  the  public  domain  a  most  important 

•Hanejr,  Congrttiional  Hittory  of  Bailwajf  to  1860,  837  soi.;  Sao- 
born,  Railroad  Land  Orant$,  388  seq. 
•Jan.  23.    Cong.  Globe,  31  Ck>ng.,  9  Sess.,  313,  313. 
*Dec.,  1849. 

•  "Soclel  Forces  in  American  History."    Amtioan  HUtorietU  Stottw. 
XVI..  999. 


134!        The  Political  History  of  the  PvbUc  Landa 

topic  of  political  bargaining." 

It  will  be  recalled  that  Evans  established  The  Working 
Man's  Advocate  in  March,  IS**.  Immediately  he  began  a 
campaign  through  its  columns  to  obtain  the  sentiment  of 
candidates  for  political  offices  on  the  freedom  of  the  public 
lands.  A  pledge  not  to  vote  for  any  man  who  would  not 
pledge  himself  to  prevent  the  further  traffic  in  the  public 
lands  and  in  favor  of  their  freedom  to  settlers  was  printed 
and  circulated."  In  the  presidential  campaign  Polk,  whose 
Jacksonian  policies  appealed  to  laboring  men,  was  endorsed 
in  opposition  to  Clay  whose  opposition  to  pre-emption  and 
whose  distribution  policy  were  well  known.'  A  workingmen's 
ticket,  including  candidates  for  Congress,  was  named.*  It  is 
probable  that  Clay  suffered  from  the  opposition  of  the  Land 
Reformers ;  he  admitted,  it  will  be  recalled,  that  the  foreign 
vote  went  against  him. 

If  the  land  reformers  expected  any  substantial  aid  from 
the  new  administration,  they  were  disappointed;  the  home- 
stead bills  introduced  in  1846  by  McConnell  and  Andrew 
Johnson  were  not  well  received  in  that  they  made  no  provi- 
sion for  future  landless  men  by  prohibiting  land-holders  from 
disposing  of  their  homestead  to  other  land-owners  and  for 
the  reservation  of  all  lands  for  actual  settlers."  In  spite  of 
this,  there  was  no  let-up  in  the  activity  of  the  reformers. 
The  disturbances  connected  with  the  anti-rent  movement 
stirred  up  much  dissatisfaction  with  the  old  parties  and  gave 
their  cause  greater  impetus.^"  In  1847  the  New  York  Trib- 
une ^^  estimated  that  not  less  than  fifty  periodicals  earnestly 

•  Working  Man'i  Advocate,  May  18,  1844. 
'  Ibid.,  May  11,  June  15  and  Nov.  9,  1844. 
*Ibid..  Sept.  SI  and  Oct  A.  1844. 
•N.  T.  Weekly  TrUtune.  V.  tch  21,  1846. 
»  Hammond,  SiUu  Wright.  674-676,  685. 
■^Quoted  in  The  Harbinger,  Oct  9,  1847. 


t :  -m 


The  Political  and  Legislative  Hittory 


185 


advr  *ed  it  and  several  had  been  established  expressly  for 
tha  ^.urpose.  The  National  Industrial  Congress  which  met 
in  June  adopted  resolutions  requesting  the  Liberty  party 
convention  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  the  presidency  and 
declaring  that  the  constituency  of  their  body  could  support 
no  candidate  who  would  not  pledge  himself  in  writing  to  the 
measures  of  the  National  Reformers.  If  both  old  parties 
neglected  to  nominate  candidates  in  favor  of  these  measures, 
stated  the  resolutions,  and  if  the  Liberty  party  should  nomi- 
nate such  candidates,  the  Congress  would  likely  nominate 
candidates  "so  introduced  to  their  notice,  by  a  political  or- 
ganization having  the  cause  of  human  rights  at  heart."  " 
The  convention  which  met  at  Macedon  Lock,  New  York,  the 
same  month  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  a  Liberty  party  con- 
vention;" and,  although  nothing  was  said  directly  about 
land  reform,  the  nomination  of  Gerritt  Smith  for  the  presi- 
dency was  popular  among  the  land  reformers.  In  the  Na- 
tional Reform  convention,  held  at  Boston  in  October  of  that 
year,  the  old  parties  were  declared  to  be  in  the  control  of 
men  possessed  of  wealth  or  high  station  and  Gerritt  Smith 
was  commended  as  a  man  worthy  of  the  office  of  president.** 
In  184)8  things  appeareu  to  break  well  for  the  land  re- 
formers. The  friction  in  the  old  parties  caused  by  the  heated 
slavery  agitation  made  the  outlook  for  a  third  party  bright. 
There  was  a  common  interest  on  the  part  of  those  who  op- 
posed the  extension  of  slavery  and  those  who  wanted  the 
land  parceled  out  into  small  farms  worked  by  their  owners. 
"Free  soil  and  free  farms"  was  a  slogan  to  conjure  with.  On 
the  thirteenth  of  June  the  Industrial  Congress  which  met  at 
Philadelphia  unanimously  rejected  both  Cass  and  Taylor 

°  Voic»  of  Induatry.  June  85,  1847.  ' 

"Albany  Patriot,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  July  9,  184T. 
^Ibid.,  Nov.  «,  1847. 


1S6        The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 


and  endorsed  Gerritt  Snoith,  of  New  York,  the  nominee  of 
the  Liberty  League,  for  the  presidency  and  named  William 
S.  Wait,  of  Illinois,  for  the  vice-presidency.  The  platform 
named  three  cardinal  principles:  (1)  freedom  of  the  public 
lands  to  actual  settlers;  (2)  land  limitation  in  the  States; 
and  (3)  homestead  exemption  from  legal  confiscation  for 
debt.*'  The  Free  Soilers  met  at  Buffalo  the  following  month 
and  adopted  a  platform  which  included  a  plank  resolving 
"That  the  free  grant  to  actual  settlers,  in  consideration  of 
the  expenses  they  incur  in  making  settlements  in  the  wilder- 
ness, which  are  usually  fully  equal  to  their  actual  cost,  and 
of  the  public  benefits  resulting  therefrom,  of  reasonable  por- 
tions of  the  public  lands,  under  suitable  limitations,  is  a  just 
and  wise  measure  of  public  policy,  which  will  promote  in 
various  ways  the  interests  of  all  the  States  of  this  Union; 
and  we  therefore  recommend  it  to  the  favorable  considera- 
tion of  the  American  people."  *'  Of  course,  this  plank  was 
"straddle" ;  it  is  only  an  example  of  what  has  happened  in  so 
many  of  our  political  conventions:  that  is,  to  keep  within 
the  fold  the  various  wings  of  the  party.  This  platform  was 
mainly  the  work  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  assisted  by  Charles 
Francis  Adams  and  Benjamin  F.  Butler.'^  On  such  an  im- 
portant issue  as  the  public  lands  the  plank  could  not  be 
specific  in  a  party  made  up  of  "Barnburners,"  who  were  dis- 
gruntled followers  of  Van  Buren,  the  "Conscience"  Whigs, 
the  Liberty  party.  Land  Reformers,  and  many  admirers  of 
Clay." 

The  Land  Reformers  refused  to  accept  the  land  resolution. 
The  Business  Committee  of  the  Rochester  (N.  Y.)  National 


"N.  r.  Weekly  Tribune.  June  17  and  July  1,  1848. 
"Greeley  and  Cleveland,  Political  Text-Book,  17,  18. 
"  Julian,  Becollectiom,  57,  68. 
"Julian,  Giddingi,  253. 


The  Political  and  Legislative  Hietory 


M7 


Reformers  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Free  Soil  candidate,  Van 
Buren,  in  which  they  protested  that  the  Buffalo  land  plank 
was  not  clear  and  decided  enough.  It  neither  acknowledged 
the  natural  right  to  the  soil  nor  prohibited  the  sale  to 
monopolists  and  speculators.^"  Another  enthusiastic  land 
reformer  wrote  to  Van  Buren  as  follows:***  **What  the 
effect  would  be,  Sir,  of  an  exposition  from  you — especially, 
relative  to  this  vital  interest  to  our  fellow  man,  if  at  this 
juncture,  were  published  to  the  world,  over  your  own  high 
name — the  toiling  millions  would  tell  in  tones  of  thunder,  in 
November  next.  Free  Soil  to  the  Free  occupant — what  a 
war  cry  for  Freemen ; — 'Free  Lands  for  Free  Hands.*  " 

Van  Buren's  utterances  of  the  subject  were  rather  am- 
biguous. He  said  he  had  always  favored  reserving  the  pub- 
lic lands  for  actual  settlers.  He  differed  from  the  conven- 
tion, he  said,  in  that  the  latter  proposed  free  grants,  while 
he  favored  grants  at  prices  little  if  anything  more  than 
sufficient  to  pay  the  expenses  of  survey  and  location.  But, 
he  added,  the  question  of  revenue  was  only  important  be- 
cause it  offered  a  prospect  of  securing  regularity  and  greater 
stability  of  settlement.  If  a  plan  could  be  devised  by  which 
these  objects  would  be  as  well  effected,  he  would  favor  that.** 

Van  Buren's  failure  to  come  out  with  a  direct  indorsement 
of  the  National  Reformers'  public  land  policy  cost  him  the 
support  of  many.**  Where  the  Land  Reformers  and  the 
Free  Soilers  per  se  split  was  on  the  relative  importance  of 

"Fowler  et  al.  to  Van  Buren,  Aug.  22,  1848.  Van  Bwen  Paptrt, 
Mss.  Vol.  49. 

"  T.  B.  Relly  to  Van  Buren,  Washington,  D.  C.  Aug.  21,  1848.  Fon 
Burtn  Papen,  Mss.  Vol.  56. 

"  Letter  of  acceptance  to  the  Committee  of  the  Buffalo  ConTCntion, 
Aug.  22,  1848.  Ntw  York  Wetkly  Tribune,  Sept  2,  1848;  see  also 
memoranda  in  Van  Buren  Paptrt,  Mss.  (August)  1848.    VoL  M. 

*  Toung  Ammriea,  Se;  t  23,  1848. 


138        The  Political  Hittory  of  the  Public  Landa 


I  li: 


J" 


free  homesteads.  Evans  and  his  followers  considered  uni- 
versal emancipation  secondary  to  free  lands,*'  while  through- 
out William  Lloyd  Garrison  refused  to  support  the  cause  of 
the  National  Reformers.**  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  The 
Working  Man's  Advocate  and  Young  America  supported 
Gerritt  Smith,  many,,  including  National  Reformers,  sup- 
ported Van  Buren.*'  Perhaps  some  did  not  understand  the 
difference  in  the  platforms. 

Van  Buren  and  his  advisers  missed  a  great  opportunity  of 
drawing  in  a  large  Western  vote  by  not  featuring  the  home- 
stead issue.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Cass  had  no  homestead 
plank  in  his  platform,  he  carried  every  Northwestern  State  *• 
because  the  pioneers  preferred  him  as  a  W^estem  man,  in 
sympathy  and  action,  to  Van  Buren  whose  promises  to  the 
West  were  couched  in  ambiguous  phrases.  DeWitt  C.  Law- 
rence,*^ of  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  Free  Soil  nominee  for 
Congress,  wrote  to  Van  Buren :  *'  "Your  name  here  in  con- 
nection with  the  spirit  of  free  soil  which  is  pervading  the 
entire  West  is  a  tower  of  strength,  and  I  am  satisfied  that 
but  one  step  further  upon  the  platform  which  if  fairly 
brought  before  the  people  would  give  you  the  electoral  vote 
of  this  together  with  the  entire  Western  free  States. — I  refer 
to  the  measure  of  the  free  distribution  of  the  Public  Lands 
to  actual  settlers. — ^With  your  letter  in  my  hand  as  a  friend 
of  that  measure  I  .  .  .  could  'stump'  the  Valley  of  the  Grand 
River  and  carry  force  enough  to  secure  the  State.     A  very 

"  Young  America,  Sept  33,  1848. 

**  Tht  Voice  of  Induttry,  May  7,  1847.  See  extract  from  The  Liber- 
ator, for  March  19,  1847,  in  Documentary  History,  VII.,  351,  353. 

"  Young  America,  Sept.  23,  1848. 

"Smith,  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties,  154  seq. 

"  Later  witlidrew  in  favor  of  the  Whig  candidate.    Ibid.,  158. 

"Lawrence  to  Van  Buren,  Aug.  15,  1848.  Van  Buren  Papers,  Mas. 
VoL  55. 


The  Political  and  Legitlative  Hiitory 


Ud 


large  proportion  of  emigrants  to  this  state  from  Ireland 
are  located  in  the  Grand  River  Valley,  and  in  this  region 
already  with  this  policy,  which  we  have  here  adopted  there 
is  scarce  an  Irishr  an  but  throws  up  his  hat  for  Van  Buren. 
Extraordinary  exertions  are  being  made  by  Cass  himself  to 
secure  this  state  by  a  large  majority,  and  without  having 
consulted  you  on  this  measure  we  have  taken  the  liberty  of 
using  your  name  nolens  volens  in  connection  with  the  policy 
— we  took  this  liberty  because  we  believed  the  measure  Demo- 
cratic, and  because  we  knew  you  to  be  a  Democrat."  '• 

The  fact  must  not  be  overlooked,  however,  that  if  Van 
Buren  has  espoused  the  radical  land  policy,  he  might  have 
lost  the  support  of  as  many,  and  more,  conservatives  as  he 
might  have  gained  radicals.  But  the  significant  fact,  after 
all,  is  the  evidence  of  a  very  considerable  feeling  in  favor  of 
land  reform  in  the  West  and  Eatit.  As  an  indication  of  this 
it  may  be  pointed  out  that  three  papers,  the  New  York 
Tribune,  the  New  York  Globe,  and  the  Philadelphia  Daily 
Sun,  supported  the  principle  of  the  freedom  of  the  public 
lands  and  Taylor,  Van  Buren,  and  Cass,  respectively.'"  The 
Whigs,  hoping  to  counteract  his  strength  in  the  West,  and 
taking  advantage  of  the  popularity  of  land  reform,  por- 
trayed Cass  as  a  land  speculator  hostile  to  settlers.'^ 

"Cf.  letter  of  D.  S.  Curtiss  to  Evans  from  Chicago,  Ills.  Sept.  11, 
1848.  Young  America,  Sept  33,  1848.  Doctrines  of  free  lands  to  actual 
settlers  are  rapidly  spreading  in  the  West  So  far  as  they  go  the  Barn- 
burners are  doing  something  to  extend  the  movement.  There  is  much 
in  the  platform  of  the  Barnburners  that  is  good,  but  the  plank  on  Land 
Reform  is  not  satisfactory.  Van  Buren  had  a  glorious  opportunity  in 
his  reply  to  the  nomination,  but  be  faltered— be  truckled— he  equivo- 
cated. The  Buffalo  convention  was  too  much  of  a  compromise.  It  is 
inconsistent  for  a  Land  Reformer  or  Abolitionist  to  Join  the  Van 
Buren  party.    This  is  the  substance  of  the  letter. 

**  Young  America,  Sept  93,  1848. 

''North  Carolina  Standard,  Oct.  18,  1848;  N.  7.  Weekly  Tribune, 
Aug.  S,  1848. 


t 


140       The  Political  Hittory  of  the  PubUc  Lond$ 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  forces  in  favor  of  land  reform 
were  divided  in  the  campaign  of  IS-iS;  had  they  presented 
a  solid  front,  their  cause  would  have  attracted  the  attention 
of  the  country  and  their  petitions  given  a  more  respectful 
hearing  in  Congress.  As  it  was,  the  homestead  bills  intro- 
duced by  Greeley  '*  and  Andrew  Johnson  "  in  the  Congress 
immediately  following  the  election  received  short-shrift. 
When  Greeley  asked  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  motion  to 
reject  his  bill  only  about  twenty  members  rose  to  second  the 
call  and  the  bill  was  laid  on  the  table  by  a  viva  voce  vote." 
Greeley's  bill  conformed  more  closely  to  the  National  Reform 
ideal  than  any  previous  ones.'"  It  provided  that  every  citi- 
zen, or  applicant  for  citizenship,  might  settle  upon  any  quar- 
ter section  of  the  public  lands  subject  to  private  entry  at  the 
minimum  price  and  receive  a  certificate  of  the  right  of  pre- 
emption to  it.  At  any  time  within  seven  years,  upon  giving 
due  proof  that  he  had  improved  and  cultivated  the  land,  had 
built  a  dwelling  and  resided  on  it,  and  that  he  was  the  owner 
of  no  other  land,  he  should  be  entitled  to  a  right  of  unlimited 
occupancy  of  forty  acres  of  said  tract,  if  unmarried,  and 
eighty  acres,  if  married,  free  of  cost.  The  balance  of  the 
quarter  might  be  purchased  by  the  occupant  at  any  time 
within  seven  years  at  $1.25  per  acre,  with  legal  interest  from 
date  of  pre-emption.  Any  man  might  purchase  at  the  mini- 
mum price  any  quantity  of  public  lands,  by  making  affidavit 
that  he  required  it  for  his  own  use  and  improvement,  but  if 
he  failed  to  make  such  affidavit,  he  must  pay  the  minimum 
price  of  five  dollars  per  acre. 

For  the  next  three  years  the  public  land  situation  was 


"Dec.  5,  1848.    Cong.  Olobt,  30  Cong.,  9  Seas.,  13. 

"Dec.  11.    Ibid.,  26. 

"  Feb.  27,  1849.    Ibid.,  60S. 

"The  substance  of  the  bill  ia  given  in  Ibid. 


The  Political  and  Legislative  Hietory  141 

very  complicated.  Amidat  a  whirlwind  of  politico,  log-roll- 
ing, and  hostile  public  land  committees  the  homestead  bill 
had  little  chance.  "The  truth  about  it  is,"  said  Represen- 
tative Dawson,  of  Georgia,  in  1851,»«  "that  the  public  lands 
are  made  a  mere  battle-door  for  political  purposes ;  and  any 
man  who  has  any  aspiration  to  the  highest  office  in  the  gift 
of  the  people  of  this  country  makes  it  his  business  to  form 
his  platform  upon  the  public  lands,  and  the  rights  and  in- 
terests of  the  States  are  made  subservient  to  the  personal 
aspirations  of  individuals.** 

The  year  1860  was  the  most  important  in  the  history  of 
the  public  lands  since  1841.  Congress  was  in  session  until 
the  last  day  of  September  but  its  time  was  so  taken  up  by 
the  Compromise  of  1880,  the  Oregon  bill,  the  Illinois  Central 
Railway  land  grant  bill,«^  land  bounties,"  distribution,'" 
graduation,**  and  cession**  that  homestead  was  shoved 
aside.  The  attitude  of  the  committees  on  public  lands  had 
much  to  do  with  the  sea  A.  consideration  it  received.**    It  is 

"Feb.  97.  Ibid..  31  Cong.,  9  Seas.,  743;  see  also  N,  F.  Wwkh  Trib- 
une, Feb.  1,  1851. 

"Sanborn,  Land  Orantt,  30  seq.;  H&nej,  Congmeional  Hiitorv  to 
1850,  363  seq. 

"  See  above. 

•April  30,  1850.  Cong.  OUtbt.  31  Cong.,  1  SeH.,  870,  871.  Dayton. 
of  New  Jersey,  in  the  Senate  offered  as  an  amendment  to  the  Illinois 
Central  bill  a  blU  providing  for  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  pubUc  lands  according  to  the  act  of  Sept  4,  1841.  He  said 
that  since  liberality  was  offered  to  new  states,  there  was  no  reason  why 
the  same  spirit  should  not  be  shown  to  the  old  states. 

"Ibid.,  78,  90,  91,  93. 

"Dec.  31.  1849.  Ibid.,  93.  Walker,  of  Wisconsin,  gave  noUce  of  a 
biU  to  cede  the  pubUc  lands  to  the  states  in  which  they  lie  upon  condi- 
tion that  they  be  sold  by  land  states  to  actual  occupants  only,  In  limited 
quantities,  for  cost  of  transfer  merely. 

"Homestead  bills  were  introduced  in  the  House  by  Young,  of  Illi- 
nois. Andrew  Jcrimson  and  Moore,  of  Tennessee,  and  in  the  Senate  by 
Stephen  A>  Dou«^  and  Samuel  Houston.    Cong.  Globe,  81  Coof,  1 


142       Th0  Political  Hi$tory  of  the  Public  Landi 


more  than  passing  strange  that  the  Senate  committee  on 
public  lands,  which  was  made  up  of  four  men  from  the  West 
and  Southwest  with  but  one  from  the  East,"  should  have 
returned  a  report  which  absolutely  condemned  homestead.** 
In  fact,  they  delayed  the  report  as  long  as  they  could.** 
The  document,  which  was  read  by  Mr.  Felch,  begins  with  a 
discussion  of  the  revenue,  declaring  that  if  lands  are  given 
away  the  loss  in  revenue  to  the  government  will  have  to  be 
made  up  by  taxation,  involving  a  change  of  payment  of  an 
annual  sum  of  several  millions  from  one  class  of  citizens  to 
another.    The  public  lands  had  been  a  source  of  expense  to 
the  government,  and,  therefore,  it  would  be  taxing  people 
who  received  no  benefit  if  the  price  should  be  abolished.    A 
homestead  law  would  reduce  the  price  of  public  lands  in  the 
new  States  and  real  estate  in  all  States.     No  one  would  invest 
in  land  when  it  was  free.     It  was  idle  to  suppose,  declared 
these  senators,  that  the  merchant,  mechanic,  manufacturer, 
or  tradesman  would  relinquish  his  accustomed  business  to 
receive  a  gift  of  160  acres  in  the  wilderness  to  live  by  the 
Sew.,  87,  863,  979,  408;  493,  494,  448,  1199,  1449,  1440.    Daniel  Webster 
introduced  a  resolution  which  attracted  much  attention.    It  was  a  home- 
stead resolution  and  conformed  quite  closely  to  the  National  Reform 
ideal.    Senaf  MUeell.  Doc,  31  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  No.  39.    See  also  Cong. 
Qlobt,  31  Cong.,  1  Ser?.,  616.    It  may  be  of  some  interest  to  note  that 
in  this  session  the  term  "homestead"  was  used  for  the  first  time.    July 
95,  1650.    IbUi..  1449. 

«/6W.,  45.  Borland  (Ark.,  Dem.);  Corwln  (Ohio*  Whig);  Shields 
(Ills.,  Dem.);  Smith  (Conn,  Whig);  and  Felch  (Mich.,  Dem.). 

•♦  Andrew  Johnson,  no  doubt  for  the  reason  that  the  House  commit- 
tee was  hostile  to  homestead,  tried  to  have  his  bill  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee on  agriculture,  but  was  refused.  Later  he  changed  the  Utle  of 
the  bill  by  calUng  it  a  biU  to  "encourage  agriculture"  and  then  suc- 
ceeded in  having  it  referred  to  that  committee.  July  95.  Ibid,,  14aa 
See  Ap.  950. 

•July  16,  1850.  StnaU  RtporU,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  No.  187.  Scs 
compUint  of  Walker,  of  Wis.,  at  the  delay.  April  83,  1850.  Om§- 
aiob;  31  Cong,  1  Sess.,  804. 


Th4  Political  and  Legitlative  Hiatorff  14S 

toil  ot  his  hands  upon  it.    In  the  principal  cities  of  the  coun- 
try there  was  a  large  population  of  paupers,  beggars,  and 
persons  of  dissolute  habits  who  had  spent  years  in  luxury 
and  idleness  who  were  entirely  unfit  for  a  life  of  toil  and 
hardship  in  the  wilderness.     Hardy  men,  proclaimed  these 
senators,  needed  no  inducement  of  free  land.    Farmers  could 
always  get  along  in  a  new  country  and  foreign  emigrants 
usually  brought  enough  money  to  purchase  land,  and  those 
who  did  not  were  usually  industrious  enough  to  earn  the 
necessary  amount.     The  result  of  homestead  would  be,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  committee,  to  draw  a  less  worthy  class 
from  this  and  foreign  countries  to  the  public  lands  which 
they  would  soon  abandon.    This  report,  needless  to  add,  was 
a  through  and  through  "stand  pat"  document.    The  authors 
apparently  were  of  the  opinion  "that  whatever  is  is  right." 
Besides  the  debate  on  the  Illinois  Central  bill  and  the  land 
bounty  law,  there  was  considerable  discussion  on  the  Oregon 
bill  which  was  enacted  into  law.*"    This  provided  that  every 
settler  in  Oregon  Territory,  eighteen  years  or  over,  who  was 
a  citizen,  or  had  declared  his  intention  of  becoming  a  citizen 
should  receive  free  of  charge  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres 
of  land,  if  single,  and  six  hundred  and  forty,  if  married,  on 
condition  of  four  years'   residence   and  cultivation.     The 
struggle  over  the  Wilmot  proviso  and  the  Compromise  of 
1850  had  a  strong  influence  in  solidifying  Southern  sentiment 
against  any  policy  which  would  build  up  the  Northwest  and 
stimulate  immigration.     The  trend  of  the  times  may  be  read 
m  the  speeches  and  votes  on  the  Oregon  bill:  Southern  jeal- 
ousy of  the  rapidly  increasing  population  of  the  free  States 
and  the  growth  of  the  "nativist"  feeling.*' 
The  law  was  not  entirely  satisfactory  to  the  people  of 

"  Sept  il,  IMO.    Btatutu  at  Largt,  IX.,  496  aeq. 
« Cong,  aiobt,  31  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  1839-1848. 


144        The  PoUtical  History  of  the  Pvblic  Landt 

Oregon.  While  the  bill  was  pending  some  had  foreseen  the 
difficulty  which  would  follow  the  donation  of  such  large 
tracts  to  individuals.**  As  it  worked  out,  many  settlers  had 
more  land  than  they  needed,  but  not  being  able  to  secure 
title  to  it  until  after  the  elapse  of  four  years,  they  could  not 
dispose  of  any  portion  to  settlers  who  were  anxious  to  pur- 
chase land  in  settled  communities.  Such  a  situation  was 
unfortunate  because,  besir'es  involving  problems  always  at- 
tendant upon  scattered  settlement,  it  prevented  the  settle- 
ment of  towns  and  the  purchase  of  mill  privileges  and  manu- 
facturing sites  by  those  who  had  the  capital  to  invest  in  such 
enterprises.*' 

Upon  the  approach  of  the  presidential  election  of  186S 
the  agitation  for  a  homestead  law  took  on  increased  vigor;  a 
perfect  deluge  of  petitions  from  Maine  to  Minnesota  poured 
into  the  Nation's  capital.'"  Unfortunately  our  bicameral 
system  has  enabled  our  legislators  to  cloud  the  issue  on  many 
occasions.  The  House  of  Representatives,  more  sensitive  to 
public  sentiment,  passed  a  homestead  bill  in  185«  by  a  two 
to  one  vote'^  in  spite  of  many  filibusters  and  the  hostile 
influence  of  bounty  "'^  and  land  grant  bills.    From  the  begin- 

-  Cong.  Olobt,  SI  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1843,  1844. 

•Memorial  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  Territory  of  Oregon. 
The  Oregon  Statesman,  March  7,  18S4.  See  debate  in  Congress  May  8, 
1854.  Cong.  Globe.  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1076-1080.  In  the  Territory  of 
Nebraslca  there  was  the  same  complaint.  Nebraeka  Nev>$,  March  », 
1857.  Greeley  thought  80  acres  preferable  to  160  acres  as  a  homestead 
grant.  No  man  ever  cultivates  160  acres  except  by  the  labor  of  others, 
he  said.  Few  men  can  cultivate  even  40  acres  thoroughly  except  by  the 
aid  of  hired  or  stolen  labor.  The  end  c  >'  a  homestead  bill,  he  declared, 
should  be  to  encourage  each  man  to  work  for  himself.  N.  7.  S«m*- 
Weeklg  Tribune,  July  81,  1854. 

"  Cony,  aiobe.  31  Cong.,  1  Sess. 

"May  12,  1858.  Ibid.,  39  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1349-1351.  There  was  a 
great  light  over  allowing  the  privilege  to  foreigners. 

"Johnson  to  Patterson,  April  4,  185i.    Johiuon  Papere,  Mss.  VoL  1. 


The  PoUticaL  and  Legulatioe  Hittory  145 

ning  of  March  until  the  middle  of  May  the  bill  was  before  the 
House  and  the  debate,  as  a  Washington  correspondent  put 
it,'"  was  made  the  "stalking  horse  for  political  disquisitions 
bearing  on  the  Presidential  question."  Representatives  with 
their  ejes  on  the  political  situation  in  the  States  where  the 
bill  was  popular  made  speeches  calculated  to  tickle  the  ears 
of  their  constituents.'*  Manj  members  who  were  opposed 
to  the  bill  were  afraid  to  have  their  votes  recorded  against 
it." 

In  the  Senate  the  bill  had  to  contend  with  a  hostile  com- 
mittee on  public  lands  "'  which  did  not  report  on  it  until  two 
months  after  it  hid  been  referred  to  it,"'  and  also  against 
the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  indigent  insane  °"  which  was  the 
very  opposite,  albeit  a  clever  one,  of  a  homestead  bill.  The 
efforts  to  take  up  for  consideration  the  homestead  bill  were 
voted  down  overwhelmingly.'" 

"  Charluton  Couritr,  May  «,  1853. 

**N.  r.  Weekly  Tribune,  May  16,  1859;  BaUimore  Ameriean.  quoted 
in  the  Biekmond  Whig,  June  2,  1859;  Wa«h.  Corr.,  Baltimore  Sun,  July 
31,  1852;  Dee  Moinet  Valley  Whig  (Keokuk,  Iowa),  Sept  9,  1859; 
speech  of  Campbell,  of  Ohio,  March  5,  1859.  Cong.  Globe,  89  Cong., 
I  Sess.,  Ap.  261  seq. 

■  The  Washington  correspondent  of  the  LouiMvUle  DaUy  Courier  (June 
4,  1852)  wrote  that  a  majority  of  the  House  members  were  opposed. 

"Felch  (Mich.,  Dem.);  Shields  (Ills.,  Dem.);  Dodge  (la.,  Dem.); 
Underwood  (Ky,  Whig);  Pratt  (Md.,  Whig);  Cong.  Globe,  39  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  32.  Dodge  and  Shields  were  friendly  to  the  bilL  N.  Y.  WeeUg 
Triune,  May  22,  1852. 

"  In  answer  to  Senator  Chase's  inquiry  Felch,  the  chairman,  said  that 
the  committee  needed  much  time  because  of  the  great  change  which  it 
would  make  in  the  land  system.  He  also  said  that  the  death  of  a  mem- 
ber of  the  committee  and  the  absence  of  another  had  caused  delay. 
July  8,  1859.    Cong.  Globe.  39  Cong.,  1  Se«i.,  1681. 

"This  measure  will  be  discussed  in  another  connection. 

"Aug.  19.  Walker's  motion  lost  14  to  81.  Ibid..  9194.  The  votes 
in  favor  were  all  Western,  Southwestern,  and  men  of  the  tj^pe  of  Chase, 
Sumner,  and  Wade.    Aug.  90,  1853,  Hale's  (N.  H.)  motion  defeated 


146       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landt 

The  course  of  the  homestead  bill  in  Congress  in  1852  is 
significant  chiefly  for  two  things :  First,  it  shows  that  home- 
stead was  of  such  great  importance  that  both  of  the  old 
parties  were  hedging  in  order  not  to  injure  their  chances  in  a 
presidential  election;  and,  second,  the  South  was  becoming 
a  unit  in  opposition.  This  ultimately  transformed  the  issue 
from  one  on  which  the  Wes^  and  labor  were  lined  up  against 
the  old  States  into  a  contest  between  the  North  and  South. 

The  homestead  issue  probably  did  not  cut  much  figure  in 
the  election  which  resulted  so  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the 
Democrats.  It  had  not  yet  become  a  party  measure,  except 
as  a  part  of  the  Free  Soil  platform.  While  the  bill  was  be- 
fore Congress  the  labor  leaders  sought  to  bring  pressure  on 
the  members  by  declaring  that  if  the  bill  did  not  pass  the 
Senate,  the  Democratic  party  would  be  held  responsible.** 
In  June,  1851,  the  National  Industrial  Congress  had  named 
Isaac  P.  Walker,  of  Wisconsin,  who  had  been  active  in  the 
Senate  in  behalf  of  the  homestead  bill,  as  that  body's  choice 
for  the  presidency."'  During  the  campaign  an  address 
signed  by  Land  Reformers,  including  John  Commerford  and 
Lewis  Masquerier,  was  circulated,  which  stated  that  one  of 
the  causes  of  the  failure  to  secure  the  enactment  of  a  land 
reform  law  was  the  failure  of  Land  Reformers  to  concen- 
trate their  votes  on  certain  candidates."*  The  address  rec- 
ommended that  they  cast  their  votes  for  Scott,  because  in 
his  letter  of  acceptance  he  had  declared  in  favor  of  the  set- 
tlement of  the  public  domain  by  actual  occupants  only. 
Pierce  was  held  up  as  the  candidate  of  a  party  responsible 


16  to  38.    Ibid.,  '2'2m,  23G7.    Mason,  of  Virginia,  objected  to  Hale's  mo- 
tion because  it  was  moved  by  the  candidate  of  an  abolition  party. 

"N.  Y.  Weekly  Tribune,  Aug.  7,  1842. 

"/6»d.,  June  14,  1951. 

"  Ibid.,  Oct.  23,  1852. 


The  PoUtical  and  Legislative  Hitiory 


147 


for  the  defeat  of  the  homestead  bill.  Although  the  Free  Soil- 
ers  had  a  plank  which  declared  that  the  public  lands  "should 
not  be  sold  to  individuals  nor  granted  to  corporations,  but 
should  be  held  as  a  sacred  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  people, 
and  should  be  granted  in  limited  quantities,  free  of  cost,  to 
landless  settlers,"  "  a  vote  for  their  candidate,  John  P.  Hale, 
was  condemned  as  a  vote  for  Pierce.  Land  Reformers  were 
advised  to  vote  the  entire  Whig  ticket  unless  certain  Demo- 
cratic nominees  declared  specifically  for  land  reform. 

The  Whig  papers,  especially  those  in  the  West  and  in 
those  communities  where  the  homestead  measure  was  popular, 
laid  the  failure  of  the  homestead  bill  in  Congress  at  the  door 
of  the  Democratic  party.'*  The  New  York  Tribune  •"  ridi- 
culed the  Democratic  plank  which  condemned  distribution 
as  an  attempt  to  dodge  the  roal  issue,  the  freedom  of  the 
public  lands.  Of  course,  the  Democrats  in  the  West  denied 
this,  while  in  the  South  Democratic  editors  tried  to  pin  the 
stigma  of  friendliness  to  the  measure  upon  bhe  Whigs,  who 
just  as  indignantly  denied  it.**' 

As  a  result  of  the  election  of  1852  the  cause  of  homestead 
was  put  back  several  years.  The  rout  of  the  Whig  party 
was  so  complete  that  the  Democratic  party  under  the  domi- 
nation of  the  South  became  so  firmly  intrenched  in  the  fed- 
eral government  that  it  ruled  in  defiance  of  public  opinion. 
Although  the  National  Reform  movement  as  an  organization 
was  little  more  than  a  name  after  185!i,  the  cause  moved 

"Stanwood,  Hiitory  of  th»  Prttidtncy,  855. 

**  Th9  MintuiotkM,  Aug.  81  and  Oct.  3,  1858;  IlttnoU  Statt  Rtgitttr, 
Aug.  13,  1858;  LoHitville  DaUy  Courier.  Aug.  5,  1858;  Florida  Repub- 
lican, Aug.  19,  1858;  Dm  Moiiua  ValUy  Whig,  Aug.  19,  1858. 

"  Weekly  Tribune,  June  18,  1858. 

"Minneiota  Democrat,  Aug.  85, 1858;  Minneiota  Pioneer,  Oct  88, 1858; 
Wilmington  (N.  C.)  Journal,  June  4  and  18,  1853;  Richmond  Whig, 
Junta,  1853. 


148       The  Political  Hiitory  of  the  Public  Land$ 


steadily  on.  The  arrogance  of  the  slaveocracj  succeeded  in 
damming  up  the  stream  of  public  opinion  for  some  time,  but 
by  a  little  every  year  the  cause  of  land  reform  weakened  the 
barrier.  The  homestead  sentiment  continued  to  mount,  like  a 
tide,  until  within  two  years  it  threatened  to  break  through 
in  spite  of  every  possible  makeshift  the  opposition  could 
devise  to  withstand  it. 


CHAPTER   XI 


THE    ATTITUDE    OF    THE    SECTIONS    TOWARD    THE    HOMESTEAD 

Bn.1. 

T  F,  as  has  been  suggested,  the  United  States  may  be  com- 
1  pared  to  a  confederation  made  up  of  sections,  each  of 
which  is  comparable  in  area  and  population  to  certain  Euro- 
pean countries,^  the  South,  in  1854,  may  be  thou^t  of  as  the 
France  of  the  present  day.  Southern  statesmen  felt  the 
same  alarm  as  does  the  Frenc^hinan  to-day  who  compares  the 
stationary  population  of  his  country  with  the  rapidly  in- 
creasing numbers  within  the  German  Empire.  Although  the 
population  of  the  slave  States  increased  by  *7  per  cent,  in 
the  decade  from  1850  to  1860,  this  fact  was  overshadowed 
by  the  41  per  cent,  increase  of  the  free  States ;  and  the  fact 
that  out  of  4,136,175  foreign  bom  in  the  United  States  in 
1860  only  118,585  were  south  of  the  border  States  was  omi- 
nous for  the  South.* 

*P.  J.  Turner,  «Is  Sectionalism  In  America  Dying  Away?"  Amtriean 
Journal  of  Soeiology  (Mardi,  1908),  XIII.,  MS,  663. 

•In  Volume  V.,  pp.  BOS  acq.,  of  Tkt  South  te  (*•  BuOdimff  of  th« 
Nation  there  are  articles  by  Caroline  E.  MacGill  and  William  C  Hunt, 
giving  interesting  and  valuable  figures  on  the  populatioD  of  the  South. 
There  are  complete  tables  comparing  the  percentage  of  foreign  bom 
in  Southern.  Western,  and  Eastern  states,  and  the  emigration  from  the 
South,  etc  The  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Census  for  Dec  1, 
1852,  says  that  of  the  3,200,000  foreigners  resident  in  the  Union  <mly 
305,000  are  in  the  slave  sUtes;  and  of  these  137,000  are  in  the  com- 
paratively Northern  corn-growing  states  of  Md,  Va,  Ky.,  and  Mo., 
and  66,000  in  the  commercial  states  of  Louisiana.  Quoted  In  Johnsco, 
A  Hiitory  of  BmignMon,  etc,  180  aeq.  See  Chadwidi,  TM*  Cmuw  of 
tht  CMl  Wat,  Chap.  9. 


1^6       The  Potiticd  History  of  the  PvhUc  Land$ 

The  development  of  the  South  from  1860  to  1860  wm  by 
no  means  at  a  standstill,  yet  Southern  leaders  felt  that  with 
reference  to  the  other  sections  of  the  country  it  was  rapidly 
falling  behind.  A  correspondent  of  the  New  Orleans 
Picayune,  in  1856,  asserted  that  "if  the  South  drew  her 
patriotism  from  the  Arithmetic,  she  would  not  remain  in 
the  Confederacy  three  months  longer."  " 

The  rise  of  the  factory  system  in  New  England  and  in  the 
East  after  1840  had  increased  the  population  of  those  sec- 
tions and  made  them  more  tolerant  of  the  growing  West. 
Not  so  in  the  South,  where  the  system  of  labor  not  only  did 
not  attract  immigration  but  made  a  dense  population  im- 
possible and  drove  out  many  of  the  most  enterprising  citi- 
zens, who  went  to  build  up  other  sections  which  were  becom- 
ing more  and  more  hostile  to  the  institution  of  slavery.  A 
very  large  proportion  of  the  citizens  of  Indiana,  Illinois, 
Wisconsin,  Iowa,  and  Minnesota  came  from  the  northern  tier 
of  slave  States.  They  were  not  the  "poor  white  trash,"  but 
enterprising,  intelligent,  energetic  men  of  moderate  means 
who  could  not  compete  with  the  large  planters  and  who  would 
not  work  in  competition  with  slaves.  It  is  true  that  there 
was  a  large  migration  of  people  from  the  Eastern  States  to 
the  West,  but  their  places  weve  filled  at  once  by  immigrants 
from  Europe.* 

Down  to  about  1850  Southern  leaders,  like  Calhoun,  hoped 
to  tie  the  Northwest  to  the  South  by  a  system  of  transporta- 
tion by  which  the  products  of  the  two  sections  could  be 
mutually  exchanged.'    If  the  South  could  be  made  economi- 

•  Quoted  in  Charle$ton  Courisr,  Nov.  4,  1856. 

*See  a  very  interesUng  and  suggestive  editorial  in  the  Weekly  Chicago 
Preii  arid  Tribune,  Oct.  28,  1848.  Sec  also  De  Bow's  Betourcee  of  th€ 
Southern  and  Weetem  Statee,  III.,  M  seq. 

•  See  speeches  of  McDuffie,  of  S.  C,  Jan.  19,  1844.    Co»f.  Olobe,  » 


The  Attitude  of  the  Section* 


151 


cally  and  politically  independent  of  the  East  by  a  varied 
system  of  agriculture  and  an  alliance  with  the  Northwest,  the 
danger  of  the  growing  anti-slavery  agitation  would  be 
greatly  lessened.  Then  there  was  always  the  lingering  hope, 
even  after  the  South  had  declared  itself  politically  independ- 
ent, that  the  West  would  split  into  two  or  more  political 
units  and  thereby  establish  an  American  balance  of  power." 
But  this  dream  was  shattered  by  the  natural  course  of  events. 
The  Northwest  and  the  East,  instead  of  growing  away  from 
each  other,  became  bound  closer  and  closer  by  bonds  of  iron 
and  blood.  The  railroads,  instead  of  hauling  their  freight 
to  the  South,  brought  it  to  the  cities  of  the  East;'  and  it 
was  inevitable  that  the  settlers  from  New  England  and  the 
East  should  retain  many  of  their  native  ideas  and  cherish 
the  connection  with  their  kin  rather  than  turn  to  a  people 
whose  ideals  were  so  different  from  their  own.  With  their 
immobile  system  of  labor  and  comparatively  slowly  increas- 
ing population  Southern  leaders  more  and  more  came  to  see 
the  futility  of  attempting  to  settle  the  West  with  their  own 
people.'  Those  who  did  leave  their  Southern  homes  were  not 
the  large  planters  who  could  not  easily  tear  themselves  away, 
but  the  small  farmers  whose  experiences  politically,  socially, 
and  economically,  made  them  hostile  to  slavery  when  they 
came  to  a  region  where  the  institution  did  not  exist. 

These  conditions  were  bad  enough  for  the  South,  but  they 
were  by  no  means  all.    After  1864,  when  the  fortunes  of  the 

Cong.,  1  Sess.,  168,  169;  and  Calhoun,  June  96,  1846.  Ibid.,  SB  Cong., 
1  Sess.  1038. 

*  Editorial  in  Richmond  Enquirer,  April  1,  1863. 

'Paxson,  "Early  BaUv>ay$  of  the  Old  Northwett,"  Wisconsin  Acad- 
emy of  Science^  Arts,  and  Letters,  Trantaetiont,  XVII,  825.  See  sug- 
gestive series  of  maps. 

■RlxNies,  Hiitory  of  the  United  Statei,  II.,  101.  See  also  editorial 
in  the  Baltimore  4ni0riean,  April  9,  18«7. 


16«       The  PoUtical  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

South  were  inextricably  connected  with  the  Democratic 
party,  it  was  more  than  Southern  pride  could  bear  to  see  how 
the  Germans  who  were  flocking  into  the  Northwest  were  de- 
serting to  the  "Black  Republicans."  Senator  Stephen 
Adams,  of  Mississippi,  speaking  on  the  bill  to  amend  the 
Naturalization  laws,  in  1856,  accurately  voiced  the  sentiment 
of  the  South :  "  "The  number  of  members  in  the  representa- 
tive branch  of  Congress  in  1800  was  equal.  By  the  appor- 
tionment of  1850,  the  non-slaveholding  States  were  entitled 
to  144;  slaveholding  States  to  90 — present  majority  84. 
The  North  gained  in  the  last  ten  yeurs,  from  1840  to  1850, 
7  members,  which  may  be  explained,  not  from  natural  causes, 
but  from  foreign  immigration.  By  the  census  of  1850,  we 
find  that  the  present  House  of  Representatives  has  84  mem- 
bers representing  the  foreign  population — 80  from  the 
North,  and  4  from  the  South.  Eighteen  of  that  number 
arrived  in  the  United  States  between  1840-1850—15  North 
and  3  South ;  a  gain  to  the  North,  within  that  10  years,  of 
12.  It  will  be  seen  that  but  for  the  immigration,  the  South 
would  have  gained  5  members  upon  the  North,  and  we  would 
have  been  gaining  our  lost  political  strength,  in  the  place  of 
the  North  gaining  upon  us.  .  .  . 

"If  immigration  should  be  the  same  for  the  next  5  years, 
by  the  same  apportionment  the  North  will  gain  upon  the 
South  24  additional  members  from  immigration  alone;  and 
15  years  from  this  day  ...  the  North  will  have  a  majority 
of  more  than  2  to  1  in  the  other  branch  of  Congress ;  and  the 
prospect  now  is  that  it  will  have  a  similar  majority  in  this 
body.  .  .  .  Does  any  one  doubt,  if  such  political  power  ex- 
isted, that  the  North  would  not  at  once  change  the  Constitu- 
tion so  as  to  abolish  the  three-fifths  representation  for  our 
blacks  in  the  House?  ... 

•June  16.    Cong.  QM>;  34  Cong.,  1  SeiSn  1409-14U. 


The  Attitude  of  the  Sections 


168 


'•The  whole  education  of  the  foreigners,  and  their  preju- 
dices when  they  come  to  this  country,  are  against  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery ;  and  every  thing  they  hear  at  the  North 
but  confirms  that  prejudice,  and  establishes  them  in  their 
opposition  to  the  South;  and  in  such  a  contest  as  I  have 
supposed,  I  have  no  doubt  nine-tenths  would  vote  the  Re- 
publican ticket." 

At  the  risk  of  wearying  the  reader,  we  quote  further  from 
the  "fire-eating"  Charleston  Mercury  in  I860,"  probably 
the  most  influential  paper  in  the  South  at  that  time:  "It 
will  be  remembered  that  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  for- 
eigners who  touch  the  American  shore  land  in  the  city  of 
New  York.  .  .  .  They  reach  New  York  by  the  shipload,  and 
to  the  Southerner  one  of  the  strange  sights  is  a  train  of  SO 
to  60  cars  hauled  by  one  or  two  locomotives,  solely  freighted 
with  Germans  and  their  plunder,  in  transitu  for  the  extreme 
Northwest.  We  have  seen  trains  with  a  thousand  foreigners 
aboard,  at  a  reasonable  calculation,  who  were  bound  for 
Wisconsin  and  the  West. 

"However  lofty  is  the  song  about  the  United  States  being 
an  'asylum  for  the  oppressed  of  Europe,*  and  however  little 
we  are  disposed  to  cast  any  reflections  upon  the  foreign  ele- 
ment in  our  population,  of  which  there  are  thousands  of  ex- 
ceptions to  the  charge,  it  is  none  the  less  true  that  this 
immense  influx  of  Germans  and  others  have  populated  the 
great  Northwest,  and  with  their  agrarian  notions,  and  sound 
ignorance  of  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  have  vitiated  and 
demoralized  the  principles  of  the  Democratic  party.  There 
is  no  mistake  in  this.  Whole  towns  and  counties  are  settled 
by  these  people,  while  they  are  scattered  •  more  or  less  in 
every  portion  of  the  North,  in  numbers  sufficient  to  control 
the  elections. 

*  Tri-We«klf,  March  17, 


IM       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Land* 


"The  Homestead  Bill  is  a  grand  scheme  to  settle  the 
Northwest  and  create  new  States.  But  in  all  these  North- 
western States  the  tone  of  Democracy  is  good  for  nothing. 
Their  position  on  Squatter  Sovereignty  belie  all  their  pro- 
fessions upon  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  South  in  the 
territories  concerning  slavery,  and  their  advocacy  of  the 
Homestead  Bill  show  their  acquiescence  to  a  principle  that 
only  makes  the  Abolition  forces  stronger,  and  the  growth  of 
any  heresy  sanctioned  by  American  demagogues." 

That  the  political  leaders  of  the  South  and  the  planting 
interests  should  have  been  practically  a  unit  in  opposition  to 
a  bill  which  granted  160  acres  of  land  free  to  American  citi- 
zens and  to  those  of  foreign  birth  who  had  declared  their 
intention  of  becoming  citizens  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  "I 
have  no  jealousy  of  the  new  States,"  said  Senator  Toombs,** 
of  Georgia.  ...  "I  am  perfectly  willing  that  people  shall 
go  to  the  new  States,  but  I  will  not  give  them  bounties  to  go. 
I  believe  the  settlement  of  the  public  territory  is  advantage- 
ous to  both  the  old  and  new  States ;  but  I  also  believe  that  the 
States  aggregately  have  an  interest  in  the  public  domain." 
'•There  are  special  and  peculiar  reasons  why  the  South 
should  oppose  the  [Homestead]  measure,"  said  the  Wilming- 
ton (N.  C.)  Daily  Journal}^  "Its  operation  will  be  unequal 
and  unjust;  for,  from  the  nature  of  their  social  habits,  it  is 
impossible  that  the  people  of  the  South  should  compete  with 
the  North  in  the  race  of  occupancy.  The  floating  popula- 
tion of  the  North  will  absorb  the  public  domain,  additional 
free  states  will  be  brought  into  the  Union,  and  the  balance  of 


"Jan.  3,  1855.  Coup.  Globe,  SS  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  170.  Toombs  wh  more 
liberal  in  his  attitude  toward  the  West  than  men  like  Davis,  Mason, 
Hunter,  and  Benjamin.  As  late  as  i860  he  voted  for  a  liberal  home- 
stead Uw.    May  9,  1860.    Ihid.,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1998,  1999. 

"Ma^  1,  1854. 


Th0  AtHt^^d0  of  the  StetUmi 


165 


political  power  will  be  svill  further  disturbed.  Of  all  the 
measures  of  legislation,  by  which  the  abolitionists  seek  to 
accomplish  the  ruin  of  the  South,  the  Homestead  bill  is, 
beyond  comparison,  the  most  iniquitous  and  most  efficient  for 
their  evil  purposes.'*  "Most  of  the  new  settlers,  who  obtain 
homesteads  .  .  .  would  be  abolitionists,"  declared  the  Co- 
lumbut  (Miss.)  Democrat,^*  'Srhether  they  come  from  the 
North  or  from  Europe,  and  in  a  brief  time  all  the  territories 
bordering  on  the  slave  states  might  be  settled,  filled  up  and, 
of  course,  controlled  and  governed  by  free  soilers — enemies 
of  Southern  institutions.  Better  for  us  that  these  territories 
should  remain  a  waste,  a  howling  wilderness,  trod  only  by  the 
red  hunter  than  be  so  settled  and  governed.  We  prefer  the 
neighborhood  of  the  wild  Comanche  to  that  of  the  black 
hearted  abolitionist.  This,  we  know,  is  a  sectional  view  of 
the  subject  but  we  are  compelled  in  self-defence  to  look  upon 
it  in  that  light." 

The  fact  that  the  homestead  bill  was  identified  with  free 
soilism  and  abolitionism^*  made  it  extremely  odious  to  the 
South.  .  .  .  "We  make  bold  to  say,**  exclaimed  the  Charlti- 
ton  Mercury,  in  1860,"  "that  it  is  the  most  dangerous  aboli- 

>*Jul7  99,  18A4.  It  will  be  remembered  that  mort  of  these  sentiments 
were  expressed  when  the  Kansas-Nebraslca  bill  was  poiding.  Taken  in 
this  connection  thqr  are  even  more  significant. 

"Cf.  its  advocacy  by  Gerritt  Smith  and  Giddings.  Julian,  Giddimgt, 
314;  Frothingham,  O0rrUt  BmUh,  915,  916,  999  j  speech  of  Julian.  Jan. 
29,  1861.    Cong.  Globt,  SI  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  Ap.  18«. 

*•  Tri-W0tkly.  March  17.  Cf.  speech  of  Senator  Mason,  of  Virginia, 
Aug.  90,  1869,  on  the  motion  of  Jcriin  P.  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire,  to 
take  up  the  homestead  bill.  .  .  .  "The  Senator  who  maices  this  propo- 
sition has  been  nominated  for  the  Presidency  of  the  country  by  a  party 
called  the  Abolition  party.  ...  If  there  were  no  other  reaaon  for  pass- 
ing it  over  until  after  the  November  election,  that  would  be  conclusive 
with  me."  Cong.  Olob;  Si  Cong,  1  Sess.,  9361'.  At  a  meeting  of  the 
Land  Reform  Democracy  in  New  Yorli,  a  letter  from  ex-Senator  James 
D.  Westcott,  of  Florida,  was  read,  in  which  he  declined  to  make  a 


IM       The  PoUtical  Hittory  of  the  PMie  Land* 

tion  bill  which  has  ever  indirectly  been  preiied  in  CongrcM. 
How  many  individuals  are  there  in  the  South  who  can  and 
will  take  advantage  of  the  bonus  to  emigrate  to  the  frontier, 
because,  perchance,  160  acres  of  land  invite  them?  With  us 
land  is  cheap,  and  the  disposition  for  a  planter  to  take  his 
negroes  and  go  a  distance,  where  the  Government  may  own 
land,  is  ranked  among  the  novelties  of  Southern  societies." 
To  stamp  a  measure  as  **contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Con- 
stitution," "a  direct  appeal  to  the  venality  of  voters,"  "an 
assault  upon  the  citadel  of  suffrage,"  **class  legislation,"  " 
jetc,  has  always  been  a  favorite  method  of  attacking  it,  but 
in  the  last  analysis  these  are  merely  talking  points.  Rarely 
do  men  come  out  boldly  and  oppose  a  measure  on  the  ground 
of  its  hostility  to  their  section.  That  constitutionality  is 
often  a  matter  of  latitude  and  longitude  is  illustrated  by  the 
careers  of  some  of  our  leading  politicians.  The  Native 
American  party  secured  a  strong  foothold  in  the  South  not 
because  Southerners  were  less  friendly  to  the  **downtrodden 
masses  of  Europe"  than  were  New  Englanders  and  Western- 
ers, but  because  immigration  was  building  up  the  North  at 
the  expense  of  the  South.  And  this  is  the  reason  why  the 
homestead  bill  was  opposed  by  the  South. 

speech.  He  said  be  was  in  favor  of  land  reform,  but  would  consider 
it  a  compromiK  of  dignity  to  belong  to  the  Land  Reform  party  be- 
cause certain  anti-slavery  men  bad  declared  themselves  in  opposition  to 
a  monopoly  of  public  lands.    N.  Y.  Wttkly  Tribune,  June  7,  1851. 

"  These  epithets  were  applied  to  the  homestead  bill  by  many  Southern 
newspapers  and  speaiiers.  Only  a  few  examples  are  cited:  WUmimgUm 
(N.  C.)  Journal  (Weeldy),  May  31,  1859;  Biekmond  Enqmrtr  (Semi- 
Weekly),  June  1,  1853;  PtUnburg  (Va.)  Democrat,  quoted  in  North 
Carolina  Standard  (Semi-Weekly),  Oct  8,  1853;  Bopubliean  Btmntr 
and  Natkvilk  Whig,  March  99,  1859;  speeches  of  Morse,  of  La.,  Ji^jr 
98,  1850.  Conff.  Globe.  31  Cong,  1  Sess.,  1438,  1459;  Averett,  of  V», 
AprU  8.  1853.  Ibid.,  39  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1018  seq.;  Bowi^  of  Md.,  April 
96.  1859.    Ibid..  Ap.  479-483. 


The  AttUud*  of  th*  Seeiiont 


157 


The  truth  of  this  ttfttennent  ii  proven  by  the  attitude 
of  certain  regions  in  the  South  and  of  certain  Southern  men. 
The  New  Orleans  Picayune,  desirous  of  seeing  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Mississippi  Valley  and  the  Southwest  as  a  feeder 
for  New  Orleans,  wam.iy  championed  the  measure  for  a 
time."  So  long  as  the  Gulf  city  was  receiving  her  share  of 
German  immigrants  she  was  not  seriously  concerned  about 
the  threatened  perversion  of  the  Constitution.  Neither  were 
the  young  States  of  Florida  "  and  Arkansas.  In  the  latter 
State  the  newspapers  contained  editorials  calling  upon  her 
public  men  to  do  something  to  retain  some  of  the  people  who 
were  joining  the  rush  to  the  California  gold  fields  and  to 
attract  settlers  by  acquainting  them  with  the  stretches  of 
fertile  lands  in  Arkansas.^*  In  December,  1852,  the  Gover- 
nor approved  a  law  granting  every  free  white  citizen,  male  or 
female,  not  exceeding  160  acres  on  certain  conditions  and 
making  the  homestead  exempt  from  debt.*^  Missouri,  an- 
other slave  State,  althou|^  largely  Western  in  spirit,  was 
also  favorable.'^ 

It  would  be  erroneous  to  suppose  that  there  was  an  entire 
absence  of  a  homestead  sentiment  in  the  South  outside  of 
Louisiana,  Florida,  and  Arkansas.  The  fact  is  that  there 
were  many  who  had  a  direct  interest  in  the  enactment  of  such  ■ 

"  New  Orleuis  DoUy  Piea^unt,  May  93,  SO  and  June  19,  1859.  Thia 
paper  opposed  homestead  in  I860. 

'^  Florida  BtfvbUean,  June  S,  1859;  Florida  NtwM.  Feb.  «,  184S. 

'*See  Arkantat  Statt  GazttU  and  Dtmoerat  for  1850,  I8A1  and  1859. 

'^ArkantoB  Btatt  OaxttU  and  Dtmoerat,  Dee.  10  and  17,  1859. 

"  1849.  Resolutions  of  Legislature  of  Missouri,  Marcli  S,  1849.  80»- 
ate  MUcellaneoiu  Doeununtt,  31  Cong.,  1  Scss.,  Doc.  No.  93;  Jtftrton 
(Mo.)  Inquire,  Jan.  8,  1853,  and  Feb.  10,  1855.  At  about  the  same 
time  (u  these  resolutions  were  adopted  the  Legislature  formally  declared 
its  sympathy  for  the  slave-holding  states  and  denounced  the  conduct 
of  the  Northern  states  on  the  subject  of  slaTuy.  March  10,  1848.  5«»- 
lUt  Miteattamtovu  Doewnontt,  91  Cong.,  1  Scss.,  Doe.  Na  M. 


168       The  Political  Hittory  of  the  Public  Landt 


a  law.  However,  those  who  did  favor  such  a  law  were  of  the 
class  of  people  who  in  the  past  have  been  unable  to  exercise  a 
potent  influence  on  legislation  and  who  have  left  few  records 
of  themselves.  The  domination  of  the  slaveholders  in  poli- 
tics and  journalism  was  so  complete  that  the  non-slave- 
holding  interests  had  little  voice. 

Andrew  Johnson,  whose  enemies  were  fond  of  calling  him 
"that  prince  of  humbugs,'*  was  the  spokesman  in  Congress 
of  the  up-country.  Bom  in  Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  amidst 
poverty  and  misery,  an  apprentice  at  ten,  he  moved  at  the 
age  of  eighteen  to  Greenville,  Tennessee,  where  he  became  the 
personification  and  idol  of  East  Tennessee.  A  man  of  more 
than  ordinary  ability,  in  every  fibre  a  Jacksonian  Democrat, 
intolerant,  dogmatic,  jealous  of  his  own  rights  and  those  of 
his  class,  he  espoused  the  cause  of  the  great  middle  class  as 
against  the  aristocracy  of  birth  and  wealth.*'  This  **me- 
chanic  statesman,"  as  he  was  called,  preached  a  crusade 
against  what  the  present  day  calls  the  "invisible  govern- 
ment." He  was  a  man  far  ahead  of  his  time;  in  fact,  the 
principles  for  which  he  stood  put  him  abreast  of  the  radicals 
of  our  own  day.  His  advocacy  of  the  abolition  of  the  elec- 
toral college,  the  direct  election  of  senators,  a  limited  term 
for  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  abolition  of  the  con- 
vention system  of  nominating  presidential  candidates,  the 
agitation  in  the  constitutional  convention  in  his  own  State  to 

■Jan.  IS,  1846,  Johnson  offered  a  resolution  in  the  House  of  Repr»- 
sentatives  declaring  thati  I)  Rotation  in  office  is  one  of  the  cardinal 
tenets  in  a  Republican  form  of  government;  2)  eight  years  is  the  longest 
term  any  individual  ought  to  be  permitted  to  remain  in  oiBce  whose 
appointment  is  conferred  upon  the  President  of  the  United  States  and 
the  heads  of  departments;  and  3)  in  the  selection  of  individuals  t» 
offices  due  regard  to  farmers  and  mechanics  ought  to  be  paid.  (7o«f. 
Olob;  39  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  19d.  In  these  resolutions  can  be  read  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Loco-Focos  and  National  Reformers. 


The  Attitude  of  the  Sections 


169 


limit  the  influence  of  slaTehoIders  by  basing  representation 
in  the  Legislature  on  the  white  population  alone,**  all  reveal 
his  hatred  of  "an  illegitimate,  swaggering,  bastard,  scrub 
aristocracy,  who  assumed  to  know  a  great  deal,  but  who, 
when  the  flimsy  veil  of  pretension  was  torn  off'  from  it,  was 
shown  to  possess  neither  talents,  information,  nor  a  founda- 
tion on  which  you  can  rear  a  superstructure  that  would  be 
useful."'*  It  was  this  man  who,  after  a  battle  of  twelve 
years  in  behalf  of  the  homestead  biU,  declared:  "All  that  I 
desire  is  the  honor  and  the  credit  of  being  one  of  the  Ameri- 
can Congress  to  consummate  and  carry  out  this  great  scheme 
that  is  to  elevate  our  race  and  to  make  our  institutions  more 
permanent."  *" 

From  the  day  he  introduced  his  first  homestead  bill,  in 
1846,  until  a  law  embodying  its  principle  was  placed  on  the 
federal  statutes  sixteen  years  later,  Johnson  never  ceased  his 
efforts  in  its  behalf.  His  greatest  spec,  was  delivered  in 
the  Senate  on  May  «0,  1858.  Citing  the  views  of  Washing- 
ton and  Jackson,  in  order  to  establish  the  constitutionality 
of  the  measure,  and  declaring  that  the  question  of  dollars 
and  cents  was  of  no  consequence,  he  launched  into  the  reasons 
why  the  measure  was  desirable.  The  growth  of  cities  and  the 
consequent  increase  of  pauperism  and  vice  were  to  him  causes 
for  alarm.  "Our  true  policy  is  to  build  up  the  middle  class ; 
to  sustain  the  villages;  to  populate  the  rural  districts,  and 
let  the  power  of  this  Government  remain  with  the  middle 
class,"  he  said.  "I  want  no  miserable  city  rabble  on  the  one 
hand.    I  want  no  pampered,  bloated,  corrupted  aristocracy 

"Jan.  95,  1859.  Speech  on  Podflc  lUUway  biU  in  the  Senate.  Comt. 
Olobt.  35  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  579  leq. 

"Speech  on  "The  Anny"  in  the  House  of  Representatiyes.  May  99, 
1846.    Ibid.,  99  Cong^  1  Sess^  885. 

"Speech  May  90.  1858.    Ibid.,  35  Cong.,  1  Sets..  9965-997S. 


11 


160       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

on  the  other.  .  .  .  What  a  sacred  thing  it  is  to  a  man  to 
feel  that  he  has  a  hearthstone  to  defend;  a  home,  and  a  wife 
and  children  to  care  for,  and  to  rest  sc  isfied  that  they  have 
an  abiding  place.  Such  a  man  is  interested  individually  m 
repeUing  invasion;  he  is  interested  individuaUy  in  having 
good  Government.  ...  The  great  mass  of  the  people,  the 
great  middle  class,  are  honest." 

Mr.  Johnson,  as  a  firm  believer  in  "manifest  destiny," 
looked  far  beyond  the  borders  of  his  own  SUte  or  section. 
.  .  "I  am  as  good  a  southern  man  as  any  one  who  lives 
within  the  borders  of  the  South,"  but  "if,  by  crossing  the 
boundary  of  my  State  and  going  into  another,  [a  man]  can 
better  his  condition,  I  say  let  him  go.  .  .  .  Who  would  say 
to  the  poor  man  in  North  Carolina,  that  has  no  land  of  his 
own  to  cultivate,  that  Uves  upon  some  barren  angle,  or  some 
piny  plain,  or  in  some  other  State  upon  some  stony  ridge, 
that  he  must  plough  and  dig  the  land  appointed  to  him  by 
his  landlord,  and  that  he  is  not  to  emigrate  to  where  he  can 
better  his  condition?" 

The  speaker  went  on  to  say  that  he  disagreed  with  his 
Southern  colleagues  who  held  that  property  was  the  main 
object  and  basis  of  society.    He  quoted  Jefferson  to  show 
that  the  remedy  for  defects  in  a  democratic  form  of  govern- 
ment was  to  make  it  still  more  democratic,  to  put  more  power 
in  the  hands  of  the  people.    But  if  the  position  of  the  slave- 
holders  be  true,  then  he  would  demonstrate  to  them  thai 
stability  of  property  rights  and  government  could  be  secured 
only  by  making  the  people  landholders  and  thus  giving  them 
an  interest  in  the  maintenance  of  government.     "I  beUeve 
the  passage  of  this  bill  will  strengthen  the  bonds  of  the 
Union.    It  will  give  us  a  better  voting  population,  and  just 
in  proportion  as  men  become  interested  in  property,  they 
will  become  reconciled  to  all  the  institutions  of  property  in 


The  Attitude  of  the  Section* 


161 


the  country  in  whatever  shape  they  may  exiat."  '• 

Such  sentiments  could  not  fail  to  call  down  upon  Johnson's 
head  the  wrath  of  the  "fire-eaters"  who  branded  him  a  traitor 
to  the  South,*^  but  it  brought  him  considerable  popularity 
in  the  North  and  West,  especially  in  the  West,  where  in  1860 
he  was  mentioned  favorably  for  the  presidential  nomina- 
tion.'^ Johnson  always  vigorously  denied  that  homestead 
was  a  party  measure,  but  his  enemies  in  the  South  insisted  it 
was  a  "Black  Republican"  measure.^ 

Of  course,  it  is  impossible  to  say  whether  or  not  the  home- 
stead bill  would  have  become  a  law  any  soonec  if  some  one 
else  had  been  its  sponsor,  but  admitting  Johnson's  keenness 
in  debate,  his  best  friends  conceded  that  he  was  utterly  de- 
ficient in  tact  and  had  few  constant  friends.*® 

After  the  formation  of  the  Republican  party,  it  may  be 
stated,  with  certain  reservation,  the  East  and  New  England 
were  pretty  generally  in  favor  of  the  homestead  bill,  so  far 
as  their  representatives  in  Congress  were  concerned.  Men  of 
both  parties  realized  that  under  the  stimulus  of  such  a 
measure  the  population  and  development  of  the  old  States 

"  For  the  sentiments  of  other  Southern  men  who  sapported  the  home- 
stead bill  on  practically  the  same  grounds  as  Johnson,  see  speeches  of 
McMullin,  of  Virginia,  and  A.  G.  Brown,  of  Mississippi,  July  S5  and 
36,  1850.    .^0119.  aiob«,  SI  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  1450,  14«7-lMa 

"See  Rt^mbliean  Bmrntr  and  NatkvilU  Whig,  May  96  and  98  and 
June  7,  18<,7;  Angutta  (Ga.)  Conftd^racy,  quoted  in  /bM.,  April  S, 
I860:  Ibid..  April  13  and  15,  1860;  Huntnitt*  (Ala.)  Ind9f0md»nt, 
quoted  in  MtmpkiM  DaUy  Avalanekt,  Oct.  94,  1850;  a<mth»m  Monitor 
(TuscalooM.  Ala.),  Aug.  4,  1860;  NathvUU  Union  and  Anurietm,  April 
7.  1860;  Daily  Ckronielt  and  Stntintl  (Augusta,  Ga.),  Oct  6,  1800. 

'  PMUuhlpkia  Prtt.  quoted  in  North  CaroUno  Standard,  Sept  19, 
1857;  D«troU  (Mich.)  Ouardian,  quoted  in  Natkcilk  Union  and  Amor- 
ican,  April  8,  1860;  Indiana  Daily  Stnlintl,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  April  11^ 
1860;  Mankato  (Minn.)  Rteord,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  March  17, 1860. 

"  See  Naihvillt  Union  and  Amorican,  April  7,  I860. 

"McCulloch,  Vm  and  MoamrM,  S77,  878,  406. 


162       The  Political  Hittory  of  the  Public  Laadt 


M 


!      i^: 


would  suffer,  but  neither  party  could  afford  to  antagonize 
this  great  and  growing  section  whose  political  and  economic 
influence  was  increasing  every  year.  New  England  and  the 
Middle  Atlantic  States  had  no  "peculiar  institution"  whose 
existence  was  threatened  by  the  population  of  a  large  section 
whose  antecedents  and  interests  were  all  on  the  side  of  free 
dom  and  democracy  in  its  purest  form.  In  fact,  many  came 
to  see  that  the  enactment  of  a  homestead  law  would  be  one 
of  the  hardest  blows  that  could  be  struck  against  slavery.** 
As  a  result  of  Southern  opposition  the  homestead  bill  became 
a  Republican  and  anti-slavery  measure. 

New  England's  willingness  to  build  up  the  West,  even  at 
a  loss  of  her  own  citizens,  was  in  some  degree  enlightened  self- 
interest.  With  the  development  of  railways  many  of  her 
citizens  travelled  through  the  more  settled  regions  of  the 
West,  and,  like  the  Eastern  men  of  to-day,  had  their  eyes 
opened  to  the  tremendous  possibilities  of  the  country.  As  a 
consequence,  Eastern  capitalists  invested  heavily  in  Western 
railways  and  other  Western  securities  and  used  their  in- 
fluence to  further  measures  which  would  increase  the  popula- 
tion of  the  West.  A  populous  and  prosperous  West  was  cer- 
tain to  become  a  heavy  buyer  in  Eastern  markets."  Men 
like  Galusha  A.  Grow,  of  Pennsylvania,  made  good  use  of 
the  labor  argument  that  free  lands  would  relieve  the  economic 
pressure  in  the  cities."    It  was  better,  said  one  editor,  to 


"Foster,  of  Maine^  April  94,  I860.  Co%g.  QMtt,  30  Cong.,  I  Seii., 
Ap.  S44  acq. 

"BoiUm  Pott,  Aug.  <,  18Mt  TU  P»nmtyh>tMicM,  March  SI,  18M| 
Prondtnet  Journal,  quoted  in  Pontaeola  (Fla.)  Omotto,  April  10,  18M| 
Nno  York  Wttkly  Triimn*.  July  M,  18M{  Now  York  DMg  Tribume, 
Aug.  S5,  I860;  Tko  Daily  Union  (Washington.  D.  C),  March  14,  18M| 
Wash.  Corr.,  BaUimoro  8nn,  Aug.  80,  18»ai  D«Uf  low  BtaU  Domoermt 
(Davenport),  April  517,  18A7. 

"Speech  in  House  of  RepresanUtlTM.   Mardi  80, 1850.    O^af.  Otebet 


The  Attitude  of  the  Sections 


les 


have  two  thousand  people  who  were  making  our  wfld  land 
blooming  and  fruitful  than  to  have  six  hundred  policemen 
to  watch  two  thousand  people  in  jail.  It  was  better  to  send 
young  women  and  children  where  thej  could  inhale  the  free 
air  than  to  herd  them  in  damp  cellars."^  "I  know  the  lands 
will  go  West  [sic],"  said  Senator  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire,*" 
"and,  what  is  wo  .,  jou  will  take  our  children,  too;  our 
young  men  and  yuung  women.  You  will  take  those  who  till 
the  soil ;  those  who  give  character  to  the  State  will  go  West, 
and  carry  our  means  with  them.  When  we  grant  to  the 
West,  we  grant  to  our  own  kindred,  our  own  sons  and 
brothers,  who  will  leave  the  sterile  and  hard  soil  of  the  East 
to  people  the  fertile  valleys  of  the  West ;  and  so  far  as  I  am 
concerned  my  blessing  will  go  with  them.  I  know  it  is  idle 
to  ask  for  a  dollar  of  this  n^oney,  or  an  acre  of  this  land  for 
the  old  States ;  for  if  we  do  not  give  it  to  the  new  States  now, 
they  will  take  it.  That  is  an  inevitable  destiny  and  a  fixed 
fact  per  »e,  and  I  am  not  disposed  to  oppose  it  or  cavil  at 
the  result." 

However,  bj  no  means  everybody  in  the  old  States  viewed 
the  matter  in  such  a  philr^sophical  manner.  Nearly  all  new 
propositions  of  importance  are  met  with  the  cry  that  **vested 
interests"  are  assailed  and  endangered.  The  extraordinary 
migration  from  the  Atlantic  States  to  the  West  in  the  fifties 
excited  alarm.**  The  New  York  Herald,"  in  1867,  calcu- 
lated that  about  three  hundred  thousand  persons  would  leave 
New  England  for  the  West  that  year.     The  value  of  the 

32  CongH  1  Sess.,  Ap.  iM,  497.  See  speedi  of  H.  D.  Moore,  of  'Penn- 
sylvania, June  19,  1860,    Ibid..  SI  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  1851-19AS. 

**Ntv  York  Bundajf  DUptUeh,  quoted  in  Dtr  VoUu-Tribwm,  Sept  «, 
1846. 

"Jan.  ii^  I88I.    Cottg.  Qlob4,  31  Cong.,  9  SesS,  ^13. 

"*  Chicago  Prua,  Maj  90,  I8A7. 

"Quoted  in  /ML.  Am  S,  1W7. 


ii 


M 


164       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landa 

property  they  would  carry  with  them  was  estimated  at 
twenty  million  dollars.  Besides  the  check  which  the  migra- 
tion of  her  own  people  gave  to  the  East,  the  great  economic 
importance  of  the  South  enabled  it  to  bring  pressure  to  bear 
upon  the  conservative  and  capitalist  East,  especially  relative 
to  economic  legislation." 

According  to  the  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  Gen- 
eral Land  Office,  November  30,  1863,  the  estimated  cost  of 
the  public  lands  to  the  government,  including  cost  of  pur- 
chase, surveying,  selling  and  managing,  was  a  little  less  than 
twenty-two  cents  per  acre.""    To  give  away  the  public  lands 
without  any  equivalent  was  regarded  as  a  reckless  injustice, 
especially  to  the  older  States.*"     The  argument  against  pre- 
emption, that  it  was  a  bounty,  was  used  with  greater  force 
against  homestead.    It  was  questioned  how  much  good  a  do- 
nation of  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  would  accomplish.** 
♦•What  is  lightly  won  is  lightly  prized"  applied  to  free  farms. 
"The  bee  that  robs  the  hive  of  his  neighbor  becomes  idle  and 
improvident — and  is  never  known  to  profit  even  by  the  flow- 
ers in  his  own  garden,  and  the  outrage  usually  results  in  the 
death  of  the  robber  and  the  robbed,"  according  to  a  petition 
from  citizens  in  Pennsylvania.*'     It  was  absurd,  said  the 

■Cf.  Dodd,  ProfitabU  Fisldi  of  InvMtigation  in  Amtrieau  Hitlory, 
1816-1860.    AtMriean  HUt.  Bmi.,  XVIII.,  «M. 
"iSr«iMt«  Bxeeutme  Doemm«iU$,  33  Cong.,  1  Pew.,  Doc.  No.  1,  pp.  110- 

119. 

•  Report  of  the  House  committee  on  public  lands,  Collamer,  of  Ver- 
mont,  chairman,  June  93,  1848.  U.  8.  H(»u«  Report$,  SO  Cong,  1  Sesfc, 
No.  739;  Wathington  (D.  C.)  SetUiiul,  quoted  In  National  Jii(«%M0«r. 
May  8,  1844. 

*' Buffalo  Commtreial  Advertiier  and  Bo$ton  Dailtf  Moll,  quoted  In 
N.  Y.  Weekly  Tribune,  Feb.  14,  1846;  If.  Y.  Journal  of  Commtret, 
quoted  in  Richmond  Whig,  May  98,  1849;  N.  P.  Commereial  AdverlieH 
and  N.  Y,  Mirror,  quoted  In  Ibid.,  June  9,  1859. 

•  Northumberland  County.    Feb.  94,  1847.    Homee  FUm,  Um.  »  Ooof. 


The  Attitude  of  the  Sectione 


165 


Philadelphia  Inquirer,**  that,  instead  of  assisting  the  widow, 
the  orphan,  the  old,  lame,  sick,  or  blind,  that  men  in  the 
vigor  of  manhood  should  receive  charity  through  the  home- 
stead bill.  Besides,  observed  the  New  York  Mirror,  if  a  man 
was  not  able  to  purchase  a  farm  for  $1.JB6  per  acre,  he  was 
of  no  use  to  the  country."  By  accepting  a  gratuity,  a  blow 
would  be  struck  at  American  individualism. 

The  opposition  to  the  homestead  bill  in  the  West  was 
negligible  after  186«.     No  Western  man  could  remain  in 
public  life  and  oppose  a  measure  which  meant  so'  much  to 
that  section.*"     Senator  Felch,  of  Michigan,  for  some  years 
chairman  of  the  committee  on  public  lands,  was  one  of  the 
class  who  held  that  it  would  lower  property  values  and  do 
injustice  to  those  who  had  purchased  government  land.** 
Those  who  know  anything  of  the  settlement  of  a  new  coun- 
try, said  he,  are  well  aware  how  delusive  is  the  idea  that  every 
person  is  fitted  for  success  m  cultivating  a  farm  in  the 
wilderness.     Conservative  Western  men  believed  that  the 
settlement  of  the  public  lands  had  advanced  fast  enough 
for  the  public  good,  and  the  homestead  law,  besides  enticing 
thousands  to  take  up  a  life  for  which  they  were  unfitted, 
would  stimulate  an  unhealthy  growth  of  the  new  country.*' 
It  was  not  a  question  of  how  much  land  should  be  cultivated, 
he  argued,  but  how  well. 

"Quoted  in  National  IntttUgtnetr,  June  14,  19M. 

«•  Quoted  in  Ibid.,  July  97,  1854. 

•Senator  Wallier  attributed  «»  defeat  of  Senator  Pdch,  of  Michigan, 
for  another  term  to  bis  opposition  to  homestead,  March  S,  186S.  Cong. 
Ohbt.  33  Cong.,  8  Sew.,  10B5. 

-Jan.  IS,  IMI.  Ibid.,  SI  Cong,  9  Sess.,  Ap.  106,  107.  See  a]«>  speech 
of  John  Welch,  of  Ohio,  June  19,  1859.    IMd.,  88  Cong,  1  Sess,  Ap. 


•  IFMWf  North'WMt0m  Oaxtttt  (Galena  Ills.),  May  95  and  June  1, 
1859;  Witeontin  BUU4$wum,  Sept  19,  1850. 


II 


166       The  PoUtical  HUtory  of  the  Public  Land* 

But  the  West  as  a  whole  could  see  but  one  side  to  the 
homestead  question.     They  did  not  consider  the  measure  a 
sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  federal  government  for  the  West ; 
it  was  to  them  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  plain  act  of 
justice.     By  pursuing  a  liberal  policy  the  government  would 
be  liberally  rewarded.     The  public  lands  were  looked  upon 
as  capital,  raw  material,  which  ought  to  be  made  productive 
by  applying  labor  to  it  as  soon  as  possible.*"     Free  lands 
to  actual  settlers  was  merely  sound  economic  policy.     To 
allow  land  to  remain  unproductive  in  the  hands  of  specula- 
tors was  to  hoard  capital.     A  homestead  law  would  put  a 
quietus  on  land  speculation.*'     The  Western  man  objected 
to  selling  public  lands  for  two  reasons  mainly :    First,  he  be- 
lieved that  the  settler  ought  to  be  given  every  encourage- 
ment and  by  making  it  possible  for  him  to  apply  his  savings 
to  the  stocking  and  improvement  of  his  farm,  he  would  be 
better  able  to  undertake  the  journey.'"    Second,  it  was  felt  to 
be  unjust  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  Western  States  and 
Territories  to  pay  money  which  would  be  carried  to  the 
East  where  they  would  receive  little  benefit  from  it.     Money 
was   needed   in   the   West   to   build   school-houses,   roads, 
bridges,  and  the  other  conveniences  of  society.'*     After  the 
enactment  of  the  Oregon  donation  law  the  frontier  States, 

« Speech  ot  Dunham,  of  Ind,  April  6,  1853.  Cong.  Olobt,  S9  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  Ap.  408;  speech  of  Julian,  of  Ind,  Jan.  39,  1841.  lUd.,  81 
Cong.,  8  Sesa.,  Ap.  184,  186;  speech  of  Green  of  Mo.,  Jan.  98,  1851. 
Ibid.,  81  Cong.,  8  Sess.,  814,  316;  Report  of  the  conunlttee  on  pubUc 
lands  in  the  Senate,  Breese,  of  Illinois,  chairman,  Feb.  84,  1846  atnaU 
Documtntt,  89  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Doc.  No.  168. 

•  Tht  Mtnnewta  Dtmoerat,  April  91,  1869;  St.  Anthonjf  (Minn.)  Bm- 
prtu,  April  80,  1868. 

-Iowa  B«publiean  (Iowa  City),  March  89,  1864;  DttroU  Frt4  Prtn, 
March  19,  1859. 

"Speech  of  Senator  Walker,  of  Wii,  Jan.  9^  1869.  Cong.  OMt;  88 
Cong.,  1  Seas.,  811. 


Ths  AiHiutU  of  the  SteUoni 


ler 


like  Minnesota,  complained  that  the  federal  governnient  was 
discriminating  against  them  in  favor  of  Oregon,  and  de- 
manded that  they  be  given  the  same  privileges." 
-at.  Antkomf  (Minn.)  Eaprtu,  U»J  6,  18AS. 


m 


n 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN  8LAVEEV  AND  FEEE  LANDS,  1864 

THE  year  1854  is  indelibly  associated  with  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill.     The  great  historian  of  the  struggle  be- 
tween the  North  and  South  has  called  it  the  most  moment- 
ous measure  that  ever  passed  Congress  up  to  the  Civil  War 
and  to  it  he  has  attributed  the  doom  of  the  Whig  party,  the 
formation  of  the  Republican  party,  the  downfall  of  the 
Democratic  party,  the  movement  of  the  Germans  into  the 
Republican  party,  and  that  party's  capture  of  the  North- 
west.*    The  spectacular  struggle  which  it  precipitated  in 
Congress,  the  attractive  and  prominent  man  whose  name  is 
always  thought  of  in  connection  with  it,  and  the  still  more 
prominent  man  who  challenged  the  principle  laid  down  in 
the  bill  has  unduly  magnified  its  importance.     In  its  im- 
mediate   effect    the    Kansas-Nebraska    was    probably    the 
most  important  bill  of  the  time,  but  the  great  sectional 
struggle  which  raged  around  it  was  due  in  part  to  the  ex- 
istence of  a  vast  public  domain  in  the  West.'     In  the  large, 
the  homestead  bill,  although  not  enacted  into  law  until 
eight  years  later,  was  one  of  the  most  important  bills  of  the 
Nineteenth  Century  and  in  order  to  understand  the  mo- 
inentus  struggle  in  Congress  and  its  historic  consequences, 
the  homestead  and  Kansas-Nebraska  bills  must  be  studied 
together.     Leaders  on  both  sides  understood  that  a  squatter 
sovereignty  law  followed  by  a  liberal  homestead  law  and 

*  Rhodes,  I.,  490,  491. 

*See  Turner,  aignifieane*  of  tU  FnmtUr,  918,  919. 

US 


Slavery  and  Free  Landi 


189 


railroad  land  grants  on  a  lavi>h  ncale  would  have  been  of 
little  benefit  to  the  South.'  "I  think,**  said  Senator 
Seward,  "that  if  the»e  honorable  Senators  will  turn  their 
attention  to  the  r  uestion  whether  it  is  possible  that  African 
slave  labor  can  be  made,  by  any  application  of  human 
wealth,  or  human  talent,  or  human  power  that  can  be  com- 
bined, to  rescue  the  unsettled  portions  of  this  continent  from 
the  invasion  of  free  labor,  increasing  as  it  is  in  this  country, 
and  increasing  by  the  immigration  from  abroa  '.  they  will 
find  it  a  profitable  subject  of  inquiry."  *  The  task  of  the 
South  in  counteracting  the  greater  facility  of  colonizatioc 
by  the  men  from  the  free  States  was  gi  at  enough  without 
the  added  handicap  of  a  homestead  systen. 

The  second  session  of  the  thirty-second  Congress  which 
convened  following  the  election  of  Pierce  was  of  little  im- 
portance from  the  standpoint  of  land  legislation.  The 
homestead  bill  was  made  a  special  order,  but  in  the  struggle 
between  the  various  groups  which  favored  the  Pacific  Rail- 
road bill,  the  indigent  insane  bill,  and  land  bounty  bills,  it 
never  came  to  a  vote. 

In  the  following  session,  in  spite  of  a  crushing  preponder- 
ance in  both  branches  of  Congress  of  Democrats  who  were 
at  least  nominal  supporters  of  the  administration,  the  op- 
ponents of  homestead  narrowly  escaped  defeat;  so  deter- 
mined were  its  supporters  that  it  seemed  that  all  obstacles 
were  destined  to  be  overcome.'  Immediately  after  the  as- 
*Wash.  Corr.,  N.  Y.  Journal  of  Commtret,  quoted  In  Botton  Bvontng 
TravtlUr,  March  8,  1854. 

♦Speech  on  "Kanwu  Affairs,"  Feb.  8,  18*8.  Cong.  Olobt,  S5  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  618.  Speech  of  Representative  Rdand  Jones,  of  LouWana. 
April  IS,  1854«  "I  presume,  Mr.  Chainnan,  that  there  is  no  question 
which  so  much  divides  the  Democratic  party  of  tills  country  as  this  pul)- 
lic  land  qufistion."    Ibid..  33  Cong^  1  Sess,,  JIS. 

■Rhodes,  I,  «!,  gives  tiie  complexion  of  the  Senate  as  37  Democrats, 
81  Whigs,  9  Free  Strilers;  and  the  House  1»  Democrats,  71  Whip,  4 


1*70       Th4  PoUticdl  Hiitory  of  tU  FyhUe  Ltmdt 


s  • 


m 


1; 


lembling  of  Congress  in  December,  ISffS.  notices  of  inten- 
tions to  introduce  homestead  bills  were  given  by  Dawson* 
and  Grow/  of  Pennsylvania,  Henn,"  of  Iowa,  and  Cobb,* 
of  Alabama,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  by 
Chase,*®  of  Ohio,  and  Gwin,**  of  California,  in  the  Senate. 
Dawson's  bill  was  reported  back  from  the  committee  on 
agriculture,  to  which  it  had  been  referred,  without  amend- 
ment,*' and  was  made  a  special  order  for  February  14.** 
In  a  few  days  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  taken  up  for 
consideration  in  the  Senate,**  and  from  this  time  on  these 

Free  Sollen.  McKee,  Naticmal  ConvralioM  (9d  ed.),  M,  gives  88  Den- 
ocrata,  99  Whigi,  and  9  Free  SoUers  In  Senate.  See  N.  7.  Stmi-WttUf 
TrUmn«.  Dec.  9,  18AS. 

*Dcc«,  I8AS.  Conf.ahb0,9iCoag^iaea»^*,6.  The  blU  wns  intro- 
duced Dee.  14.    Ibid.,  4T. 

'Dec.  5.  The  biU  waa  introdaccd  Dec.  14.  Ibid.,  47.  Crow's  bill 
differed  from  Dawson's  on  the  following  pointsi  1)  Dawson's  bill  coi»- 
flned  the  law  to  dtisens  who  were  residents  at  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  the  bilL  Crow's  provided  that  a  man  should  declare  his  intention  to 
become  a  dtiien  before  he  could  make  an  entry  and  before  the  patent 
was  issued  he  had  to  be  naturalised.  9)  According  to  Crow's  biU  the 
settler  had  to  swear  that  the  land  wu  for  his  own  use.  8)  Settlers  had 
to  pay  the  cost  of  surrey.  Ibid.,  M7.  Crow  moved  to  substitute  his  bill 
for  Dawson's,  but  the  motion  was  voted  down  March  8,  18A4.    Ibid. 

*Dec.  8.    Ibid.,  7. 

*Dee.  19.    Ibid..  37,  88. 

"Dee.  «.    Ibid.,  S. 

"Dec.  «.  Ibid.,  5.  Cwin  said  that  at  the  close  of  the  last  session  he 
had  pledged  himself  to  Senator  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  that  he  would  assist 
hi  passing  the  homestead  bill  if  the  Pacific  Railway  bill  passed.  Dec. 
7,  Gwin's  biU  was  introduced.  Ibid.,  14.  This  bill  differed  from  the 
homestead  bill  which  the  House  had  passed  at  the  last  session  in  that 
the  right  of  settlement  upon  unsurveyed  land  was  granted.  Cwin  said 
this  provision  was  indispensable  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  new  states  and 
territories  because  many  years  would  elapse  before  the  lands  in  these 


States  and  territories  would  be  surveyed. 
"Dec  15.    Ibid.,  M. 
"Jan.  16,  1854.    Ibid.,  179. 
"Jan.  94.    Ibid.,  980  se^ 


Ibid.,  38. 


Slavtry  and  Free  Land* 


171 


two  bills  were  closely  connected.  Immediately  ft  debate  wft» 
precipitated  over  the  attempt  to  confine  speftkeri  who  mftde 
the  homestead  bill  the  occasion  to  air  their  views  on  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  to  the  former,  but  the  decision  of  the 
chair  to  cut  off  such  discussion  was  overruled  by  a  large 
majority."  Both  sides  realized  that  the  homestead  bill 
was  the  strongest  possible  antidote  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska 

bill." 

When  the  homestead  bill  reached  the  Senate  and  the  ter- 
ritorial bill  was  pending  in  the  House,  Senator  R.  W.  John- 
son, of  Arkansas,  sounded  the  key-note  of  the  Southern  op- 
position."    Although  he  had  supported  homestead  bills  be- 
fore, he  declared  that  he  was  suspicious  of  its  friends  who 
were  urging  its  immediate  consideration.     Why  was  this  bill 
pushed  so  anxiously?  he  inquired.     Because  the  government 
was  extinguishing  titles  to  lands  west  of  Missouri  and  Iowa 
and  when  the  Indians  were  removed,  all  that  region  would  be 
open  to  settlement  and  people  would  move  there  without 
an  organized  government.     By  the  Missouri  Compromise 
Southerners  were  forbidden  to  take  their  slaves  there  and  if 
the  homestead  bill  were  passed,  all  the  balance  of  the  world 
would  be  invited  to  settle  that  country,  only  excluding  people 
from  the  South.     If  the  territorial  bill  were  rejected  or  de- 
layed for  two  or  three  years,  the  question  involved  in  those 
bills  would  be  practically  settled  "and  by  a  law  which  has 

»  Feb.  15.    IbUL,  487. 

"The  contemporary  newtpapen  prove  tUs. 

"  May  8.  Ibid.,  IIM,  UM.  "If  [the  homestead  bffll  was  forced  upoo 
me  to-day,  1  should  vote  against  it  Why?  Becauce  jurt  at  this  time 
it  is  tinctured,  to  a  degree,  inm  Ut  httvUtOtU  •f*et;  and  under  the 
pecuUar  circumstances,  so  rtron^y  with  aboUtionism,  that  I  cannot,  for 
one,  bring  myself  as  a  representative  m  thU  floor  from  the  South,  for 
one  moment  to  think  of  permitting  U  to  pass  this  bo^y,  and  beeooM  a 
law."    Extract  from  Jcrimson's  speedi. 


172       The  PoUtical  History  of  the  PubUe  Lande 


ii 
\u 

II  M 

#1 


i 


a  higher  force  than  the  Wihnot  proviso  itself.**  "I  do  not 
consider,  or  believe,**  he  concluded,  **that  anj  man  who  is 
from  the  South  can  conscientiously  come  forward  and  sup- 
port that  measure;  at  least,  until  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
shall  have  been  passed.**  The  words  of  Representative 
Letcher,  of  Virginia,  are  equally  significant;*'  "I  have  no 
objection  to  the  organization  of  these  Territories  when  they 
are  needed,  but  I  have  an  objection  to  using  the  power  of 
this  Government  for  the  purpose  of  stimulating  a  hot-house 
system,  that  shall  encourage  these  Territories,  and  bring 
them  upon  us  of  the  South  as  States  when  we  are  weak 
enough  already  in  this  Government.  .  .  .  Do  not  let  this 
Government  undertake  to  destroy  us  of  the  South  by  holding 
out  stimulants  to  the  encouragement  of  northern  Territories, 
the  propagation  of  northern  sentiment,  and  the  multiplica- 
tion of  northern  representatives  here  and  in  the  Senate.**** 

»  Speech  on  *'An  act  to  amend  the  Oregon  bill."  Maj  S,  1654.  IIML, 
1079,  1060.  The  Alton  (Ills.)  T^hgraph  and  Madimm  County  Rteord 
(Whig),  April  17,  18M,  said  that  the  fate  of  homestead  in  the  Senate 
may  depend  not  a  little  upon  the  fate  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in  the  Hoiue. 
The  Washington  correspondent  of  the  BtUtimor*  Sun  (Independent,  but 
pro-Southern),  June  19,  1854,  wrote  that  the  anti-NebrasIca  senators 
had  determined  to  support  the  homestead  bill  on  the  ground  that  It  was 
an  antidote  to  the  slavery  clause  in  the  Nebraska  bilL  The  Iowa  B«- 
pubtiean  (Iowa  City,  Whig),  March  93,  18M,  declared  that  the  Ne- 
braska and  homestead  bills  are  antagonistic.  If  the  former  bill  passes 
the  House,  ran  the  editorial,  the  latter  will  probably  be  defeated  in 
the  Senate  by  Southern  influence;  and  even  should  it  pass,  it  is  not  un- 
expected that  the  President  will  veto  it  Slavery  and  free  white  labor 
under  the  homestead  law  can  never  work  harmoniously.  There  is  not 
a  Southern  senator  but  expects  to  see  slavery  in  Nebraska  Territory 
if  the  bill  passes,  and  they  will  never  give  the  fi'ce  immigration  such 
an  advantage  over  that  from  the  slave  states.  If  both  bills  become  laws, 
the  homestead  bill  will  ultimately  drive  slavery  from  that  territory,  and 
if  both  pass  we  shall  be  pleasantly  disappointed. 

"  See  the  speeches  of  Smith  and  Millson,  of  Virginia,  Feb.  fll  and  M 
and  March  9.    Com^.  Olobt,  S3  Cong.,  1  Sesa.,  461,  MS,  AM. 


Slavery  and  Free  Lands 


vn 


There  i>  no  need  at  this  place  to  r^.'Arse  the  Southern 
objections  to  the  homestead  bill  as  n  led  in  the  debate. 
Summoned  up,  the  speeches  emphasize  jealousy  of  the 

rapidly  developing  free  States  and  the  helplessness  of  the 
South  in  competing  with  them  in  the  rush  to  the  Terri- 
tories.*® 

Three  days  after  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  by  the  Senate,  and  after  its  enemies  had  exhausted  all 
sorts  of  obstruction  tactics,  the  homestead  bill  passed  the 
House  on  March  6th  by  a  vote  of  107  to  7«."  Thirty-five 
per  cent,  of  the  negative  votes  came  from  New  England, 
New  York,  and  Pennsylvania  and  the  remainder  from  the 
South,  including  Maryland.  Two  or  three  Western  repre- 
sentatives cast  their  votes  in  the  negative.  With  very  few 
exceptions,  the  New  England  and  Eastern  representatives 
who  voted  against  homestead  also  opposed  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill.  Likewise,  of  the  Southern  men  who  voted 
against  homestead,  all  except  a  very  few  registered  their 
votes  in  favor  of  the  territorial  bill.  About  thirty  per 
cent,  of  the  affirmative  homestead  votes  came  from  the  slave 

"Sentton  Owin,  of  California,  and  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  resetted  that 
the  abditioii  queation  had  been  identified  with  the  homestead  bilL  "Now, 
sir,  I  am  one  of  thoae  who  have  seen  with  the  deepest  regret  the  at- 
tempt to  connect  this  matter  of  dlaposhig  of  the  public  lands  with  the 
question  of  daTery  In  any  of  its  shapes  or  forms,**  said  Dodge.  .  .  . 
"As  a  friend  of  the  South  .  .  .  there  are  few  tUngs  which  I  so  mudi 
deplore  as  that  the  South,  the  minority  section  of  the  Union,  should 
engage  in  a  war  against  that  foreign-bom  population,  of  whom.  In  the 
days  of  Jefferson,  and  of  the  alien  and  sedition  laws,  and  since,  they 
were  the  friends  and  supporters.**  Owin  spoke  of  "an  adroit  minority 
flghting  one  measure  a^nst  another,  and  flg^iting  with  skill  t  fighting 
the  Pacific  railroad  and  the  homestead  Mil  agabist  eadi  other.**  .  .  . 
Cong.  aiob0,  S3  Cong.,  1  Sen.,  1195-1198. 

"Ibid.,  AM.  Goode,  of  Virginia,  had  moved  to  lay  the  hill  on  the 
table,  but  the  motion  was  voted  down  by  the  overwhdming  vote  of  60 
to  194.    Hmsc  in  favor  were  abaoit  eatiiely  from  the  South.   /frfaL,  MX 


174       Th€  Political  History  of  the  Public  Land* 


I 


•I 


it  t' 
M  ! 


States,  but  they  were  all,  excepting  two  or  three,"  from 
the  Southwest."  Most  of  these  were  cast  for  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill.  About  eighteen  per  cent,  of  the  affirmative 
homestead  votes  came  from  the  Northwest,  and  they  were 
about  equally  divided  on  the  territorial  bill.  Two-thirds  of 
the  affirmative  New  England  and  Eastern  homestead  votes 
went  against  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  Party  lines  on 
theae  two  bills  were  entirely  eliminated. 

The  real  fight  on  the  homestead  bill  took  place  in  the 
Senate.  In  the  House  the  alliance  between  the  West,  the 
Southwest,  and  the  Free  Soil  and  labor  elements  in  the  East 
was  too  much  for  the  opponents  of  homestead,  but  in  the 
Senate  the  slave  interests  were  in  control.  Here  centered 
the  mighty  influence  of  the  speculators  in  land  warrants, 
railroad  stocks,  and  other  interests  hostile  to  homestead.'* 
The  situation  which  confronted  the  senators  was  very  com- 
plex. First  of  all,  there  was  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
pending  in  the  House.  Second,  the  Native  American  move- 
ment had  become  so  strong  that  many  hesitated  to  declare 
themselves  on  a  measure  which  affected  the  fortunes  of  im- 
migrants."'"' Third,  the  approaching  congressional  elections 
reminded  Southern  senators  that  their  political  allies  would 
have  to  answer  for  the  conduct  of  their  party.  This  con- 
sideration applied  particularly  to  the  West  whose  alliance 

■V*.,  Md.,  and  FU.    The  Utter  wm  a  "new"  sUte. 

"  Ala.,  Mo,  Ky.,  Tenn.,  La,  Ark.,  Miss,  Mo. 

"See  iV^.  F.  S«mi-IF#«JHy  Tribuiu,  March  T,  1854. 

"See  Smith,  Parti«$  and  Blavtry.  114  seq.  Rhodes,  I,  476,  points  to 
the  adoption  In  the  Senate  of  an  amendment  to  the  Kansas-Nebradca 
bill  providing  that  only  citiaens  of  the  United  States  should  have  tha 
right  of  suffrage  and  holding  oiBce  In  the  territories  as  indicating  the 
feeling  toward  foreign  population.  All  senators  but  one  who  favored 
this  amendment  were  from  the  slave  states,  and  all  who  opposed  it  were 
from  the  'ree  states,  Dou|^as  voting  with  Qiase,  Seward,  Sumner,  and 
Wade. 


It  w 


Slavery  and  Free  Lamdt 


175 


the  South  needed  to  withstand  the  rising  tide  of  abolitionism. 
Fourth,  the  attitude  of  the  well-intentioned  but  vacillating 
President  toward  homestead  was  unknown.  Fifth,  the  in- 
digent insane  bill  was  a  source  of  much  bickering  and  bar- 
gaining. And  sixth,  althouj^  of  less  importance  just  at 
this  time,  there  was  the  agitation  in  favor  of  certain  rail- 
road land  grants. 

The  question  of  limiting  the  application  of  the  homestead 
bill  to  native  Americans  only  was  injected  into  the  debtite 
by  its  enemies  in  order  to  divide  its  friends.  The  matter 
was  brought  up  in  the  House,  but  the  opposition  succeeded 
in  staving  it  off.*'  In  the  Senate,  however,  the  debate  waxed 
hot.  Southern  senators  were  extremely  angry  with  *Jbe 
Germans,  many  of  whom  had  sent  in  petitions  remonstrating 
against  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.'''  An 
amendment,  introduced  by  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  to  strike 
out  the  provision  to  give  rights  to  foreigners  who  declared 
their  intention  to  become  citizens  and  insert  an  amendment 
that  all  who  were  unable  to  enter  one  hundred  and  sixty 
acres  of  land  should  be  paid  one  hundred  and  sixty  dollars 

■*  Amendment  offered  by  Etberidge,  of  Tenn.,  March  S.  Cong.  Otob; 
33  Cong^  1  ScM..  AS4,  535. 

"See  proceedings  of  a  mass  meeting  of  Germans  at  Clereland,  Ohio, 
presented  hf  Chase,  Feb.  28,  1854.  Ibid.,  493.  Speed>  of  Adams,  of 
Mississippi,  April  1»,  in  which  he  flay?  the  attitude  of  foreigners.  Ibid., 
944.  945.  Editorial  in  Daily  Mittouri  RtpvbUcnm  (St.  Louis,  Whig), 
Aug.  4,  1854 i  "They  [the  Germans]  are  impressed  with  the  idea,  that 
they  Icnow  more  of  the  theory  and  workings  of  oui  government  than 
those  who  have  lived  under  it  for  seventy  years;  that  a  mission  of  Im- 
provement and  progress  has  been  delegated  to  themi  that  this  mission 
can  best  be  performed  by  liecping  themselves  apart  from  other  ciUsens— 
by  German  meetings,  by  secret  associations  ...  by  agitation,  and  by 
concerted  action  everywhere.  This  has  produced  the  'Fourth  Estate' 
in  the  Republic."  ...  See  also  editorials  in  Uie  Wtukington  Evti^g 
.Star,  March  8,  1854,  and  BicknM»d  Enquirtr,  July  18,  1654,  quoting 
the  Charhtton  Mtreurg. 


176       The  PoUtkal  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

out  of  the  federal  treMury,  precipitated  the  struggle."* 
Senator  Seward,  who  wa§  accused  by  some  of  hedging  on  the 
question,*^  made  a  strong  argument  against  it.'*  What 
will  be  the  effect  if  foreigners  are  excluded  from  the  bene- 
fits of  this  bill?  he  asked.  Foreign  immigration  will  con- 
tinue just  as  before  and  when  it  enters  the  gate  it  will  find 
a  discrimination  against  it.  American  citizens  will  go  on 
the  public  lands  and  the  aliens  will  remain.  As  a  result, 
society  will  be  broken  into  two  classes,  the  foreigners  re- 
maining on  the  Atlantic  coast  and  in  the  cities.  This,  said 
he,  wiU  be  bad  for  both  East  and  West.  The  West  needs 
laborers.  Agricultural  labor  will  be  high  in  the  East  be- 
cause native  American  farmers  will  go  West.'*  ^  Chase's 
amendment  to  allow  foreigners  who  had  declared  their  inten- 
tion of  becoming  citizens  to  enter  one  hundred  and  sixty 

"July  10.    Cong.  Olobt,  SS  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  1663-16T0;  July  W.    /WA, 
17(«-niO. 

"Wash.  Corr.,  N.   Y.  Htrald,  quoted  In   Wttkljf  Arg%$  and  Dtmth 
crat  (Madison.  Wis.),  July  «4,  18*4. 

"July  1«.    Cong.  Olobt.  33  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  1708,  1709. 

"It  may  be  of  Intereat  in  this  connection  to  compare  the  policies 
of  tlic  United  SUtes  and  Canada  at  the  present  day  with  reference 
to  the  immigrant.  During  1913  only  «%  of  the  immigranU  to  the 
United  States  who  had  been  either  farmers  or  farm  laborers  in  the 
old  world  went  to  work  on  farms.  Says  the  Chicago  TrOmm  for  Feb. 
9,  1914:  "The  government  does  not  take  the  initiative  in  telling  the 
immigrant  about  the  opportunities  on  land.  The  aliens*  advisers  in 
the  industrial  centres,  the  foreign  bankers,  labor  agents,  saloonkeepers, 
on  the  other  hand,  distinctly  encourage  the  alien  to  sUy  in  the  cities, 
where  he  is  a  source  of  revenue  to  them.  .  .  .  Canada  selects  its  im- 
migranU. The  Canadian  government  has  agents  abroad  for  that  pur- 
pose. It  requires  the  alien  to  go  to  a  j^ven  destination.  .  .  .  The 
initiative  wliich  the  Canadian  government  takes  in  placing  the  Inuni- 
grant  on  land,  instead  of  allowing  hhn  to  herd  in  the  cities,  adds 
materially  to  the  wealth  of  the  Dominion.  Our  inunigratton,  on  the 
other  hand,  adds  largely  to  the  problems  of  the  country  by  crowd- 
ing in  our  slums  and  adding  to  our  exceedingly  large  army  of  crtai- 
inals,  paupers  and  insane." 


Slavery  and  Free  Landa 


177 


acres  waa  lost  by  a  vote  of  19  to  36."'  The  affirmative 
votes  were  all  from  the  free  States. 

Althou^  the  committee  on  public  lands  unanimously  re- 
ported the  homestead  bill  back  to  the  Senate  with  a  recom- 
mendation that  it  pass  three  days  after  it  had  passed  the 
House,'^  its  enemies  succeeded  in  preventing  its  considera- 
tion for  a  long  time.^*  It  was  not  until  after  President  Pierce 
had  returned  the  indigent  insane  bill  to  the  Senate  with  his 
veto,  on  May  S,  that  the  homestead  bill  received  much  at- 
tention.*"    This  opened  up  the  land  question. 

The  indigent  insane  bill,  as  it  was  called,  had  been  before 
Congress  for  several  years.  In  1848,  Miss  Dorothea  Lynde 
Dix,  a  woman  of  singularly  beautiful  character,  presented  a 
petition  to  Congress  praying  that  five  million  acres  of  public 
lands  should  be  appropriated  for  the  benefit  of  the  indigent 
insane.  The  apportionment  was  to  be  in  proportion  with 
their  respective  ratios  of  population  among  the  States  of  the 
Union.  Subsequently  the  amount  of  land  was  raised  to  some 
over  twelve  million  acres.  Miss  Dix  visited  many  States  and 
took  quarters  in  Washington  where  in  a  spirit  of  self-sacri- 
fice truly  noble  she  urged  her  cause  among  the  legislators.** 
After  many  disappointments,'^  her  hopes  grew  hi|^  when, 
in   1854,  the  bill  passed  Congress   only  to  have  victory 

"Julf  14.  Cong.  Olobt,  S3  Cong..  1  Sess^  1740.  See  comment  in 
Dttroit  Fm  Prtu,  July  18,  1854;  Dotty  CkroiOeU  and  l'«*tin0l  (Au- 
gusts, G«.),  July  19,  18M;  Wilmington  (N.  C.)  Dai/y  Jonmal,  May  9, 
IR54;  TrM»  D0moerat  (UtUe  Rock,  Arte.),  Feb.  7,  18U;  BaUimor0 
Clippgr,  March  7  and  14  and  May  9,  1854. 

"  March  9.  Cong.  Olobt,  S3  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  580. 

**See  Ibid.,  710,  711,  759-756,  930,  931. 

"Ibid,,  1060  Mq. 

"Tiffany,  Lift  of  Dorothta  Lgnd*  Di*,  Oiapter  XV-XVII.  For 
Miss  Dix's  monorials  to  Congress  see  Cong.  Olobt,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
H75,  and  Stnatt  Mitetllaneont  Docnmtntt,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Na  118. 

"  Cong.  Olobt,  33  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  9936,  9466. 


178       The  PoUtical  History  of  th*  PubUe  Lands 


I 

I 

1 


3i 


n; 


snatched  from  her  by  the  veto  of  the  President." 

The  West  naturally  feared  the  effect  of  this  measure. 
First,  it  withdrew  from  the  operation  of  the  prospective 
homestead  law  ten  million  acres.  Second,  it  turned  over  to 
"foreign"  States  large  tracts  located  in  Western  States  and 
Territories.  And,  third,  the  issue  of  a  large  quantity  of 
land  scrip,  provided  for  in  the  bill,  would  result  in  flooding 
the  market  and  lead  to  speculation  and  all  kinds  of  jobbing 
and  chicanery  in  State  legislatures." 

Because  of  its  close  connection  with  the  homestead  bill 
the  President's  veto  message  demands  examination.  The 
bill  provides  in  substance,  said  the  President,*®  for  the  grant 
of  ten  million  acres  to  the  several  States  in  the  compound 
ratio  of  the  geographical  area  and  representation  of  said 
States  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  Where  possible  the 
land  is  to  be  chosen  in  the  State  to  which  it  is  granted; 
otherwise  it  must  be  granted  in  scrip  which  shall  not  be  sold 
for  less  than  one  dollar  per  acre.  The  grounds  of  the  veto 
were  as  follows :  ( 1 )  It  was  unconstitutional,  for  if  it  is  in 
the  province  of  Congress  to  take  care  of  the  indigent  insane, 
it  must  also  take  care  of  the  indigent  who  are  not  insane. 

"The  Senate  passed  the  blU  by  a  vote  of  ««  to  W,  with  the  West 
and  a  few  Southern  senators  opposed.  March  8,  1854.  Cong.  Qlobt,  8S 
Cong.,  1  Sess.,  479. 

"Speech  of  .Senator  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  May  4,  1854.  Ibid.,  1087. 
Speech  of  Senator  Adams,  of  Mississippi,  Aug.  80,  185f.  ...  "If 
[Senators]  expect  that  so  large  a  portion  of  the  huids  lying  in  the 
new  States  are  to  be  talten  and  divided  out  to  the  old  States  with- 
out any  objection  being  offered,  .  .  .  they  certainly  are  drawing  very 
strongly  upon  the  forbearance  of  the  representatives  of  the  new  States." 
Ibid.,  S3  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  8466.  See  also  speech  of  Walker,  of  Wtaeontln, 
March  3,  1853.  Ibid.  32  Cong.,  8  Sees.,  1104-1106;  St.  Anlhony  (Mtoa.) 
Exfrtti,  May  81  and  35,  1852;  lovo  Sentinel  (Fairfield),  May  25,  1S«4; 
Detroit  Free  Prett,  May  11,  1854;  The  Oregon  Statetman  (Salem), 
June  87,  1854;  Minnetola  Pioneer,  Sept.  33,  1859. 

•May  3,  1854.    Richardson,  Ueuagee  and  Papert,  V.,  WI-9M. 


m 


's^^^  J 


Slavtry  and  Frtt  Land* 


179 


(2)  It  violates  the  cession  agreement.  (S)  It  violates  the 
Act  of  Jan.  S8,  1847,  which  pledges  the  public  debt  to  a 
loan.  (4)  There  is  no  difFerence  between  the  distribution 
of  the  public  lands  and  the  distribution  of  revenue  derived 
from  their  sale.  "The  whole  field  of  public  beneficence  is 
thrown  open  to  the  care  and  culture  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment." 

Many  newspapers  throughout  the  country,  but  mainly 
those  opposed  to  homestead,  professed  to  interpret  the  mes- 
sage as  a  threat  to  veto  the  honaestead  bill.'^  As  one  editor 
put  it.  Congress  has  as  much  right  to  give  away  lands  to 
the  insane  as  to  those  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  reason.*' 
Western  papers  approved  the  veto  and  did  not  consider  it 
an  augury  of  the  fate  of  homestead.^  The  Washington 
Linton  **  which  was  supposed  to  be  on  the  "inside**  and  which 
had  supported  the  homestead  bill,  commenting  on  the  veto, 
stated  that  the  principles  in  the  message  were  laid  down  with 
an  eye  to  the  particular  bill,  and  that  it  was  neither  the 
purpose  nor  the  province  of  the  President  to  go  outside  the 
bill  to  promulgate  sentiments  which  might  embarrass  or  in- 

»BvHt/m§  aim  (Wwh.,  D.  C).  Maj  4  and  8.  ISMt  PhUaddphU 
North  Awtsriemm,  May  19,  lM4i  National  ItUtUtfrnMr,  Mmj  «,  U54; 
Riehwumd  Bmpdnr,  Jvfy  10,  1854;  Charkttom  Courior,  May  S  and  • 
and  Julf  17,  1854;  MtpmbUeam  Bmmmtr  and  NaBkvUU  Whig,  May  11 
and  17,  1854,  etc..  etc.  Th»  NatkMh  Dniom  a$td  Amtrieam,  quoted  in 
/bid.,  Majr  11,  1854,  ragicttod  that  the  President  had  gone  beyond 
his  necessitiet  in  tha  veto  and  had  announced  a  general  principle 
which  could  not  be  indoraed  bj  a  large  portion  of  the  Democratic 
party.  It  thought  it  barefy  pouible  that  the  mesaage  might  be  mis- 
understood and  that  he  would  sign  the  btIL 

"Dotty  LouUvilU  Timt$,  May  !«,  1854. 

''Ktokuk  (Iowa)  tH»patek,  May  16,  1854;  /owa  Stait  Omxtttt  (hm- 
lington),  May  90,  1854 <  Mimimota  Dailjf  Pio—r,  May  17,  1854{  DvtnM 
Fret  Pr«$$,  May  19.  1854. 

*'May  10,  1854.  Compare  e^torial  in  CkarUttom  Mtrcmrg,  qoofead 
by  JiidbaoMl  Enq^tr,  July  If,  1854. 


I 

ii 


*!; 


l! 

I, 

I  *^  ■ 

lit- 


III  I' 
III ' 


laO       The  PoUtical  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

fluence  the  action  of  Congress  on  other  measures.  It  would 
be  rash,  continued  the  editorial,  to  declare  that  because  the 
President  cannot  approve  a  bill  appropriating  land  for  a 
purely  eleemosynary  purpose,  he  cannot  approve  one  which 
grants  his  homestead  to  the  hardy  pioneer.  The  Constitu- 
tion forbids  the  donation  of  public  lands,  but  there  is  much 
room  for  doubt,  the  editorial  concluded,  whether  the  same 
principles  stand  in  the  way  of  a  bill  which,  whilst  it  diminishes 
the  aggregate  quantity  of  public  lands,  yet  does  not  dimin- 
ish their  aggregate  value.  This  editorial  may  or  may  not 
have  been  "authoritative,"  but  it  seems  quite  certain  that 
Pierce  made  it  quite  apparent  that  he  would  not  sign  a 
homestead  bill."  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  Southern  leaders 
chose  a  less  spectacular  method  of  defeating  it. 

After  the  arrival  of  the  veto  message  several  efforts  were 
made  to  take  up  the  homestead  bill,  but  the  Southern  leaders 
succeeded  in  thwarting  them  by  postponing  the  consideration 
of  the  veto  from  time  to  time."  On  the  6th  of  July  the 
bill  failed  to  pass  over  the  veto  by  a  vote  of  «1  to  «6,  the 
administration  senators  quite  generally  supporting  the 
President.*'  After  a  few  more  attempts  to  shelve  the  home- 
stead bill,*'  the  Southern  leaders  decided  to  introduce  a  new 
bill  under  the  guise  of  a  homestead  bill,  but  in  reality  no 
homestead  bill  at  all.     This  was  Hunter's  substitute. 

On  July  10th  Senator  R.  M.  T.  Hunter,  of  Virginia, 

•This  question  wm  discussed  In  the  debates  on  the  veto  and  tiw 
homestead  bilL 

•See   Comg.   Olob;  33   Cong.,    1    Sess..   lOSS-lOW,   1134-1138,   ISW, 

1388.  1458,  1460. 

'Ibid.,  1681. 

"July  10,  Brodhead,  of  Pennsylvania,  moved  to  postpone  the  bffl 
untU  next  December,  but  the  moUon  was  negatived  18  to  S3.  Ibid., 
1661-1663.  On  July  14th  an  amenshnent  to  confine  the  bill  to  "free 
vfhltes"  was  carried  37  to  16,  with  Northern  and  some  Western  senators 
fai  tiw  negative    Ibid..  1T4»-174*. 


Slavery  and  Frtt  Lamd$ 


181 


asked  and  received  unanimous  consent  to  introduce  a  bill 
'Ho  graduate  the  price  of  the  public  landi,  and  for  other 
purposes."  *'  Knowing  that  the  committee  on  public  lands 
wns  favorable  to  a  real  homestead  bill,  Hunter  asked  that 
the  bill  lie  on  the  table.  Seven  days  later  Stuart,  of 
Michigan,  who  had  been  one  of  the  foremost  critics  of  the 
attitude  of  the  Southern  senators  toward  Dawson's  biU, 
offered  Hunter's  bill  as  a  substitute  for  it."®  As  amended 
and  passed,  this  bill  provided  for  the  graduation  of  price 
from  one  dollar  per  acre  for  lands  which  had  been  offered 
for  sale  five  years  to  twelve  and  one-half  cents  per  acre  for 
those  in  the  market  thirty  years.'^  The  States  might  pre- 
empt lands  at  graduated  prices  for  purposes  other  than  rail- 
roads and  canals,  and  they  might  fix  prices  above  the  gradu- 
ated prices  and  keep  the  excess.  When  a  State  charteled 
a  railway  or  canal  through  the  public  lands,  by  application 
of  the  State  legislature  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  he 
must  set  aside  7,680  acres  per  mile  of  railway  or  canal  within 
twelve  miles  of  each  side.  Free  whites  over  twenty-one  years 
of  age,  or  heads  of  families,  were  allowed  to  enter  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  acres  of  laad  subject  to  private  entry,  and 
after  five  years'  residence  mi^t  purchase  it  at  twenty-five 
cents  per  acre,  or  if  the  land  had  been  in  the  market  over 
twenty  years,  at  twelve  and  one-half  ceala  per  acre.  Actual 
settlers  might  purchase  their  "claim''  at  any  time  during 
the  five  years  at  the  regular  graduated  price.  The  friends 
of  homestead  objected  to  tbe  introduction  of  a  aew  bill  so 
late  in  the  session  and  pleaded  for  a  test  vote  on  iiie  original 
bill  but  all  in  vain."''     After  all  sorts  of  attempts  to  kiB  tbe 

"Ibid.,  isas. 

"July  17.    Ibid.,  17«»,  1770. 

•'/6M.,  Ap.  1199,  1193. 

"July  17.  Speeches  of  Gwin,  of  California,  sad  Brif^t,  of  Indtaaa. 
/bki,  1770,  1771. 


18t       The  Political  Hittory  of  tkt  PubUe  Lomd» 


I) 


! 


H 


Hunter  bill  had  been  made,  including  motions  to  lay  on  table 
and  nonsensical  amendments,'*  the  bill  passed  86  to  11  on 

July  «lst." 

The  motives  back  of  Hunter*s  action  are  not  difflcult  to 
understand.  Not  being  able  to  prevent  soro«  sort  of  a  vot« 
on  a  homestead  bill  without  alienating  the  Northwettem 
Democracy,  Southern  leaders  devised  a  rather  skillfully  dis- 
guised substitute.  Pierce  could  not  veto  Dawson's  bill  with- 
out weakening  an  already  unpopular  administration  and  ht 
could  not  sign  it  without  wrecking  it.'"  It  was  an  attempt 
to  smear  the  issue  and  in  some  quarters  this  was  frankly  ad- 
mitted. "An  executive  veto  might  have  postponed  the  pas- 
sage of  the  homestead  bill,  but  its  ultimate  triumph  was  in- 
evitable beyond  any  contingency  of  Presidential  opposition*** 
declared  the  Richmond  Enquirer.^*  There  were  some  fea- 
tures of  Hunter's  bill  which  this  paper  could  not  approTe, 
but  it  was  "avowedly  an  expedient,  by  which  a  measure  of 
great  and  unmixed  evil  is  defeated  and  suspended  by  a  meas- 
ure which  asserts  no  pernicious  principle,  and  which  atones 
for  necessary  imperfections  by  indisputable  and  essential 
advantage."  According  to  this  paper.  Hunter  **parried  the 
blow,"  and  without  any  sacrifice  of  principle  or  consistency, 
attached  the  Democracy  of  the  Northwest  to  the  interests 
of  the  South  by  the  strongest  obligations  of  gratitude. 
The  Southern  press  in  the  main  re-echoed  the  sentiments 

"July  18.  Brodbead's  amendment  to  fix  price  of  lands  at  M  eenks 
per  acre  lost  95  to  97.  Cong.  Olobt,  SS  Cong.,  1  Sess..  1799.  July  19,  ths 
motion  to  lay  bill  on  table  was  lost  94  to  97.  Ibid.,  1819.  Hunter  voted 
in  the  affirmative,  showing  that  he  was  not  sincere  in  introducing  his 
substitute.  On  July  90,  various  fllibusters  were  attempted.  Ibid.,  18S9, 
1833. 

"/bW.,  1844. 

"See  an  able  editorial  in  the  RtpvbUetm  Banner  and  No»MO» 
Whig,  July  99,  1854.  See  also  Boston  Evtnimg  TrmtlUr,  July  99, 
1854. 

"July  95, 1854. 


■^- 


SltfVirp  and  Fru  Lamdt 


18t 


of  the  Enqvkrtr*^  The  Fori$fiumth  (Va.)  COoU  "*  rejoiced 
that  it  would  "create  a  bond  of  fraternal  feelingf  between 
the  Southern  and  Western  States,  which  may  laugh  to  teom 
the  mad  ravings  of  Northern  fanaticism,  and  bid  defiance  to 
all  their  wicked  attempts  to  destroy  the  peace  and  arrest 
the  prosperity  of  our  beloved  country.** 

Not  all  Southern  editors,  however,  were  pleased  with  Hunt- 
er's manoBuver.  The  Richmond  Eatamintr  '*  admitted  that 
the  question  was  perplexing  and  that  Western  Democrats 
would  not  have  stood  firm,  but  saw  no  reason  why  the  South 
should  back  out.  **If  every  Democrat  in  the  Senate,  or  in 
the  roimd  world,  voted  for  the  new  Homestead,  that  would 
not  make  26  cents  per  acre,  payable  in  five  years,  from 
foreign  and  native  squatters  on  the  public  domain,  produce 
a  remunerative  fund  for  the  common  benefit  of  all  the  States. 
It  is  a  sham  sale.  ...  It  gives  up  the  kernel,  and  the  next 
thing  they  will  be  taking  away  from  us  the  shell.**  There  was 
some  opposition  in  Virginia  where  the  Whigs,  or  rather  dis- 
tributionists,  considered  it  a  blow  to  their  favorite  measure.** 

"A  few  of  the  representative  cooamcnts  are  eltedi  WoHk  Omro- 
HiM  Standmrd,  Aug.  9,  18M(  LotOtkma  CowUr,  Jnlj  80^  18M|  S«- 
vawndk  DmOf  Otorgiam,  JvSj  19.  S5.  «7  and  SB,  18M{  DmOf  LombvOU 
Tim0$.  Jnlj  99,  1854{  OharUttou  Mmmtrf  and  Norfolk  Argmo,  quoted 
in  North  CaroHma  BUtndard,  Ang.  9.  ISMt  WloridHUm  mud  Jowml,  Jvljr 
»,  18M;  CohmXmo  (Miss.)  DemeenU,  Aug.  18.  1854t  Wmihlm§to» 
SttUinol,  quoted  bjr  Riekmottd  Bmqmiror,  Jnlf  97,  ISMi  BoUtmoro  Bum, 
July  99.  18M;  Dotiy  C7irfoii  (WasMngton),  Juljr  99  and  Ang.  !«,  lUi. 

"Quoted  In  Rkkmond  Bn^tr,  July  81,  IBM. 

"Quoted  in  North  CaroHm  Standard,  Aug.  9.  1854.  See  alio  DaUg 
ChroitUU  and  Stntinol  (Augusta,  Ga.).  Aug.  18.  18M|  Potonburf 
(Va.)  Bonth  Bido  Dtmoerat,  quoted  in  North  CaroUna  Bttmdurd,  Aug. 
5,  1854;  BaUimoro  OHppor,  July  94,  1854{  Na^onal  InUUigonoor,  July 
80  and  94,  1854. 

"Richmond  Bnfniror,  Ang.  5  and  Sept  9  and  11.  1854|  Jfarrifo*- 
burg  (Va.)  VaUoy  Domoorat,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  Aug.  1  and  8q>t  96^ 
1854;  Biehmtond  Baaminor,  quoted  in  Ibid.,  Sept  91, 18Mb 


MICROCOPY   RESOLUTION   TEST   CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


1.0    !f'-  " 


I.I 


2.8 

13.6 

14^ 


2.5 
2.2 


ffl^ 


1.8 


^  /APPLIED  \MA3E:    Inc 

S^  1653   East   Moin   ilreet 

.f  Rochester.   Ne«  York        14609       USA 

B  (716)   482  -  0300  -  Phone 

=  (716)   288  -  5989  -Fox 


-liil 


r 


184        The  Political  History  of  the  PvbUc  Lands 

The  substitute  was  very  acceptable  to  the  Southwestern 
States  because  it  gave  them  an  advantage  over  the  North- 
west, since  it  was  not  applicable  to  any  other  than  surveyed 
lands  and  those  in  the  market,  most  of  the  lands  in  this 
section  having  been  in  the  market  fifteen  years  and  a  great 
many  still  longer  so  that  they  would  be  open  to  settlement 
cheaper  than  in  the  Northwest.®^ 

The  Hunter  substitute  ^vas  a  bitter  pill  but  the  friends  of 
a  real  homestead  bill  swallowed  it  and  voted  for  it  on  its 
final  passage  on  the  ground  that  it  was  the  only  bill  that 
faintly  resembled  a  homestead  measure  that  could  pass  at 
this   session.«2     To  the   politicians   whose  political   fences 
needed  fixing  it  was  a  welcome  relief.     It  was  rumored  in 
some  quarters  that  the  bill  laid  the  foundations  for  Hunter's 
forth-coming    candidacy    for  •  the    presidency .«»     Douglas, 
whose  motives  in  introducing  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  have 
been  attacked,  exhibited  a  certain  shiftiness  in  connection 
with  the  homestead  measure.     Early  in  the  session  he  fought 
the  efforts  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  House  bill, 
declaring  it  a  "measure  of  such  transcendent  importance, 
that  we  ought  to  give  it  a  preference,"  «*  but  when  the  op- 
position grew  stiffer  he  showed  signs  of  hedging  «*  until 
finally  he  pronounced  the  substitute  "entirely  satisfactory," 
and  even  went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  i':  embodied  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  House  bill  "with  a  very  slight  modification."  «« 
Douglas  had  his  eye  on  future  Democratic  conventions  and 
"See  letter  of  Senator  R.  W.  Johnson,  of  Arkansas,  to  the  Trtw 
Democrat   (Little  Rock).  Aug.  16,  1854;  Ibid.,  July  26,  1854. 

-Speeches  of  Senators  Shields  (Ills.,  Dem.)  and  Chase  (Ohio,  Free 
Soil),  July  81.    Cong.  Globe.  33  Cong..  1  Sess..  1843,  1844;  New  York 
Semi-Weekly  Triburie,  July  21  and  25.  1854. 
"  Wash.  Corr.,  Charleitcn  Courier,  Aug.  7,  1854. 
"Cony,  aiobe,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  752. 
«  May  3.    Ibid.,  1067-1070. 
-July  21.    Ibid.,  1843. 


Slavery  and  Free  Land* 


185 


had  no  desire  to  throw  away  his  political  chances  by  fighting 
such  .^  formidable  combination  as  the  Southern  senators  had 
built  up  against  homestead." 

Representative  Dawson  and  the  friends  of  his  bill  were 
indignant  at  the  treatment  it  was  accorded  in  the  Senate. 
They  refused  to  accept  the  substitute  and  the  House  re- 
fused to  consider  the  homestead  bill  any  further.'* 

The  defeat  of  the  homestead  measure  was  a  heavy  dis- 
appointment to  the  West  and  unquestionably  lost  the  Demo- 
cratic party  many  supporters.     The  South,  in  a  sense,  had 
'•parried  the  blow"  by  granting  the  form  for  the  substance 
but,  after  all,  it  was  not  difficult  for  Republican  leaders  to 
make  it  plain  that  but  for  the  Southern  wing  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party  the  House  bill  would  have  passed.     The  South- 
ern senators,  acting  in  the  interest  of  their  section,  chose 
the  lesser  of  two  evils:  it  was  a  question  of  whether  they 
should  give  their  votes  for  a  homestead  bill  which  would 
gain  for  them  the  gratitude  of  the  West  and  at  the  same 
time  throw  away  all  hopes  of  securing  at  least  a  part  of 

"See  the  comment  of  the  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Philur 
delphia  North  American.  July  17  and  19.  1854.  on  the  conduct  of 
Douglas  and  Cass.    See  also  Wash.  Corr..  DttroU  Frw  Pr,».  July  «, 

'^«*July  SI.     Cong.  Globe.  S3  Cong.,  1  Sess,  2034;  August  »•'*«•' 
2071.  2076:  Aug.  3.    Ibid..  2104.  2105.     In  a  long  and  able  letter  to 
the  editor  of  the  Washington  Union  (Aug.  6.  1854)   Mr.  Dawson  ex- 
plains his  attitude  and  that  of  his   friends  toward  the  Hunter  bllL 
He  says  it  is  a  biU  for  the  benefit  of  the  states  and  raUroads  and 
that   the   privilege   to   actual   settlers   to   P"'=*"«'^  ^"?_  »*   *!' "Jj- 
five  cents  an  acre  is  encumbered  and  narrowed  and  restricted  by  tte 
privileges  conferred  upon  the  states  of  pre-empting  the  whole  of  the 
public  lands  within  their  limits  and  ateo  by  privileges  conferred  upon 
railroad  corporations,  or  wealthy  contractors,  etc.     In  conclusion,  he 
calls  upon  an  enlightened  public  opinion  to  speak  out,  in  tones  boW 
and  loud.  Uke  that  which  sustained  Cobden  in  his  opposition  to  the 
lords  (which  he  in  another  place  compares  to  the  Senate). 


186       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landi 

that  section  for  slavery,  or  whether  they  should  hold  out 
and  tack  against  the  breeze  of  popular  sentiment.  The  po- 
sition of  the  dominant  faction  of  the  Democratic  party  was 
by  no  means  happy.  How  could  any  body  of  men  after 
days  and  weeks  of  worry  and  all  night  sessions  be  expected 
to  throw  away  the  fruits  of  victory  in  the  struggle  over 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  by  enacting  a  homestead  law 
which  was  sure  to  bring  it  all  to  naught?  Sometimes  a  party 
or  organization  by  pursuing  what  at  the  time  appears  to  be 
a  suicidal  policy  and  suffering  temporary  losses  makes  it 
all  back  in  the  end.  As  it  fell  out,  it  was  not  until  eight 
years  later — after  the  Southern  members  had  withdrawn 
from  Congress — that  a  homestead  law  was  put  on  the  stat- 
utes. No  man  could  accurately  predict  what  happened  as  a 
result  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill — the  break-up  of  the 
Democratic  party,  emigrant  aid  societies,  and  the  border 
wars. 

The  South  and  the  opponents  of  cheap  lands  did  succeed 
in  defeating  homestead,  but  they  could  not  prevent  the  en- 
actment of  a  graduation  law.  This  measure  had  been  be- 
fore Congress  since  Benton  introduced  his  first  bill  in  1826 
and  it  became  especially  important  after  1846  when  the 
homestead  measure  became  a  matter  for  congressional  con- 
sideration. From  about  1848  Representative  W.  R.  W. 
Cobb,  of  Alabama,  had  stood  sponsor  for  the  bill.  In  Janu- 
ary, 1854,  Cobb  introduced  graduation  as  a  part  of  a  home- 
stead bill,  but  later  he  introduced  it  separately .«•  The  bill 
passed  the  House  by  88  to  64  on  April  14,^"  after  several 
close  votes  had  been  taken,  including  one  to  lay  the  bill  on 
the  table  which  was  defeated  only  by  the  narrowest  mar- 

•Jan.  IS.    Cong.  Gloht,  33  Cong.,  1  Sess,  169}  April  11  and  18. 
Ibid.,  894,  895,  909  seq. 
'•I6W.,  918. 


Slavery  and  Free  Lands 


191 


gin.'*  In  the  Senate  the  bill  was  crowded  out  and  was  not 
taken  up  for  consideration  until  four  days  before  final  ad- 
journment when  it  was  seen  that  the  House  would  not  act 
on  the  Hunter  substitute."  Senator  Chase  tried  to  substi- 
tute the  homestead  for  Cobb's  bill,  but  later  withdrew  his 
amendment  and  the  graduation  bill  passed  by  a  viva  voce 

vote. 

The  bill  provided  that  lands,  with  certain  exceptions, 
including  those  granted  to  States  for  railways  or  internal 
improvements,  or  mineral  lands,  which  had  been  in  the  market 
over  ten  years,  shovdd  be  sold  at  one  dollar  per  acre,  fifteen 
years  at  seventy-five  cents,  twenty  years  at  fifty  cents, 
twenty-five  years  at  twenty-five  cents,  and  thirty  years  at 
twelve  and  one-half  cents.'"  The  right  of  pre-emption  to 
these  lands  was  granted  under  certain  regulations.  A  per- 
son applying  to  enter  such  lands  was  required  to  make  an 
aflidavit  that  he  entered  it  for  the  purpose  of  actual  settle- 
ment and  cultivation,  or  for  the  use  of  an  adjtiining  farm  or 
plantation  owned  by  or  occupied  by  himself,  and  that  he  had 
not  acquired  under  the  act  more  than  three  hundred  and 
twenty  acres. 

On  the  votes  in  the  House  there  was  a  great  deal  of  dodg^ 
ing  on  the  part  of  members  who  apparently  did  not  want  to 
go  on  record,  but  on  the  final  passage  the  negatives  are 
made  up  almost  entirely  of  Eastern  and  Southern  votes. 
Most  of  the  negative  votes  from  New  York,  Pennsylvania, 
and  Kentucky  had  been  cast  in  the  affirmative  for  home- 
stead. Considerably  over  half  of  the  affirmative  gradua- 
tion votes  had  been  affirmative  on  homestead.     The  West- 

"  April  IS.    Ibid.,  917.    The  vote  on  engrossment  for  the  third  read- 
ing was  79  to  69.    Ibid.,  917. 
"Aug.  S.     Ibid.,  9208-8904.     The  bill  passed  Aug.  4.     Ibid.,  9904. 
**  8tatut«$  at  Larg;  X.,  A74. 


188        The  PoUtical  History  of  the  Public  Lands 


1^ 


J 


lit 


em 


and  Southwestern  members  went  strongly  for  it,  and 


74 


practically  all  who  did  not  vote  for  it  failed  to  vote  at  all 
The  attitude  of  the  South,  as  recorded  in  the  vote,  was  that 
of  almost  unbroken  hostility. 

The  bill  was  most  vehemently  opposed  by  Greeley  who 
regarded  it  as  a  measure  of  deadly  hostility  to  the  home- 
stead bill,  in  that  it  favored  the  absorption  of  the  lands  in 
large  tracts  by  extensive  proprietors.     In  an  editorial  in 
answer  to  the  author  of  the  bill  who  wrote  in  its  defense, 
Greeley  predicted  accurately  the  frauds  that  were  sure  to 
be  perpetuated  under  it."     A  few  months'  trial  convinced 
Cobb  that  Greeley  was  right,  and  he  suggested  an  amend- 
ment to  remedy  the  defects."     The  act  was  productive  of 
fraud  and  perjury.     Persons  took  the  prescribed  oath  that 
they  were  entering  land  for  occupancy  with  the  mental  reser- 
vation that  the  land  would  be  required  for  actual  settlement 
and  cultivation  at  some  future  time.^^     Others  employed  men 
to  make  the  affidavits  for  them.     Another  defect  was  the  diffi- 
culty of  classifying  land  according  to  price,  because  lands  in 
several  parts  of  the  same  township  had  been  offered  for  sale 
at  different  times.    Instead  of  increasing  the  revenue  from  the 
sale  of  public  lands,  as  many  anticipated,  the  effect  was  the 
very  opposite.     The  sales  became  confined  largely  to  lands 
graduated  to  the  two  lowest  price  levels,  while  those  held  at 
the  minimum  price  of  $1.26  per  acre  were  entered  almost  ex- 

^*New  York  Semi-Wetkly  Tributu,  April  18,  1854. 

"JV.  Y.  Semi-Weekly  TrU>une,  April  21,  1864.  See  also  Ibid.,  April 
14  and  18,  1854.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  Greeley  favored  the  indigent 
insane  bUl. 

"  Dec.  26, 1854.    Cong.  Globe,  33  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  132. 

"Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Nov.  30, 
18*4.  Senate  ««««»«»«  Doeumentt,  33  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  Vol.  I.,  81  seq.; 
Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  Nov.  29,  1856.  Ibid.,  34  Omg, 
S  Sess.,  V(d.  II.,  175. 


Slavery  and  Free  Landi 


189 


clusively  with  land  warrants.'" 

The  graduation  measure  furnishes  another  example  of  the 
complex  nature  of  the  public  land  question  and  the  difficulty 
of  framing  laws  to  meet  conditions  and  to  avoid  loop-holes 
for  the  perpetration  of  fraud. 

"  Rq>ort  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Oftce.  Nor.  90, 
1859.  80nat0  DoeuiMiU$.  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I.,  IM,  IM.  See  also 
Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.    Dec  1,  1859.    Ibid.,  I,  99. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


THE   HOMEBTEAI)    BIXL   IN    C0N0KE8S,    1860 

AFTER  1854  the  United  States  was  a  house  divided 
against  itself  and  the  policy  of  the  South  for  the  next 
two  or  three  years  was  simultaneously  to  consolidate  the 
slave  States  and  to  conciliate  the  Northwest.*     •*The  North- 
em  Whig  party  is  now  completely  sectionalized,"  ...  de- 
clared the  Richmond  Enquirer,^  shortly  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  Congress  in  1864.     "We  will  not  dery  that  a  por- 
tion of  the  Northern  Democrats,  especially  in  the  Eastern 
States,  have  free-soil  tendencies,"  it  continued,  "but  we  af- 
firm without  feai  of  successful  contradiction,  that  the  only 
chance  of  uniting  a  party  sufficiently  strong  to  control  the 
Union  according  to  constitutional  principles,  is  the  alliance 
of  the  South  with  the  Northern  Democracy,  particularly  in 
[sic]  the  Northwestern  Democracy,  which  has  stood  so  true 
to  us  in  the  Nebraska  struggles.     There  or  nowhere,  are 
the  allies,  with  whom  we  must  fight  the  battle  for  Southern 
rights  and  the  Constitution.     The  free-soilers  of  the  North- 
east see  this,  and  they  court  the  Northwest  by  voting  for 
every  scheme,  however  unconstitutional,  which  is  popular 
with  them  and  serves  to  divide  the  Democratic  Republican 

•  For  evidence  that  the  South  waa  courting  the  Northwest  see  Dodd, 
The  Fight  for  tht  Northwest,  1860.  American  Hitt.  Rev..  XVII, 
T74-T89.  According  to  this  writer  the  South  gave  up  the  fight  to  con- 
trol the  Northwest  after  the  results  of  the  campaign  of  1858  became 
known. 

*Sept  9,  1854. 

IM 


The  HomgaUad  BiU  in  Congreat 


191 


party.     And  now,  when  we  can  settle  thii  great  land  ques- 
tion* on  which  the  Northwestern  States  are  so  deeply  in- 
terested, and  which  concerns  our  own  Southwest  yet  more 
deeply — when  we  can  settle  it  without  any  real  sacrifice  on 
our  parts,  and  strictly  in  conformity  to  the  letter  of  the 
Constitution,  and  thus  bind  these  States  to  our  alliance  by 
the  bonds  of  gratitude  and  of  interest,  shall  we  reject  the 
chance?  .  .  ."  Over  a  year  later  when  the  fire  of  sectionalism 
was  burning  still  more  fiercely  this  same  paper*  declared 
that  "the  circumstances  of  our  situation  clearly  indicate, 
that  preparation  for  disunion  is  the  only  means  to  avert  dis- 
union.    A  speedy  connection  with  the  Ohio,  the  Northwest 
a  ^d  the  Mississippi  valley,  by  means  of  the  Centre  and  Cov- 
ington Road  will  render  us  wholly  independent  of  the  North- 
east, attach  the  Northwest  indissolubly  to  the  South,  and 
in  the  event  of  disunion,  cast  the  numerical  strength  and 
almost  all  the  agricultural  wealth  of  the  Union  into  the 
scale  of  the  South.**  .  .  . 

These  words  are  quoted  from  perhaps  the  most  influential 
paper  in  the  South  at  this  time,  and  there  is  evidence  to  show 
that  if  the  Southern  leaders  had  tempered  their  words  and 
made  reasonable  concessions,  especially  in  land  legislation, 
the  Northwest  might  have  welcomed  an  entente  cordiaie.^ 

*The  italics  are  mine. 

*Bielmond  Enqmir0r,  Dec  18,  18M. 

•A  sentiment  favorable  to  the  South  is  noticeable  in  aereral  West- 
ern papers.  I  shalL  try  to  make  this  point  clear  as  the  discussion 
proceeds.  See  also  Dodd,  Tht  Fight  for  «*•  Nortkwut,  1860.  Dec 
19,  1860,  the  Wetkhf  Council  Bluf$  (Iowa)  BugU,  in  response  to  a 
communication  advocating  in  the  event  of  the  secession  of  the  South- 
ern states  that  Iowa  should  secede  and  join  the  confederation  of  states 
between  the  Mississippi  River  and  the  Pacific  Ocean,  stated  that  it 
was  incUned  to  agree  with  the  proposition,  but  only  as  a  last  resort 
ITie  editor  said  he  was  very  willing  to  see  Massachusetts  and  Ver- 
mont secede    "Had  aU  the  New  En^and  states  seceded  [at  the  tinie 


19t       The  Political  HUtory  of  the  Public  Land* 


f 
I 

I 


The  South  was  the  only  section  which  had  a  strong  na- 
tional political  party  in  which  its  influence  was  concentrated. 
After  1864  the  Democratic  party  was  virtually  supreme  in 
the  South  and  it  controlled  not  only  the  legislative  branch 
of  the  federal  government  but  the  executive  and  judicial  de- 
partments as  well.     The  Native  American  movement,  al- 
though of  some  consequence  in  the  South,  was  rather  a 
source  of  strength  because  it  hampered  the  effectiveness  of 
the  purely  sectional  Republican  party.     And  so  far  as  the 
homestead  bill  was  concerned,  the  Southern  Democrats  and 
the  Know-nothings  were  one.     The  contest  over  the  speaker- 
ship in  Congress  in  1866-66  and  1869-60  shows  how  much 
power  a  solid  "bloc"  can  wield  even  though  its  members 
are  in  the  minority. 

It  was  unfortunate  for  the  South  that  a  measure  which 
meant  so  much  to  the  Northwest  as  did  the  homestead  bill 
should  have  been  before  the  country  when  the  South  could 
so  ill  afford  to  grant  it.     The  Democratic  party,  in  spite 
of  the  disastrous  effects  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in 
of  the   annexation  of  Texas],"  he  said,   "it  would  have  been  better 
still."    See  Minnesota  Pioneer.  May  97,  1862.    The  editor  of  this  paper 
deplored  the  fact  that  the  South  was  not  reciprocating  the  good  feeUng 
that  the   Northwest   had   always   shown    for  the   South.     "The   great 
Northwest,"   said  he,   "anxiously  waits   to   know,   if  the   South   reaUy 
intends  to  spurn  us  with  haughty  contumely."     See  also  speeches  of 
Phelps  and  Cavanaugh,  of  Minnesota,  Jan.  20,  1859.    Cong.  Olobe.  S5 
Cong.,  2  Sess.,  502-506.     "I,  sir,  have  inherited  my  Democracy;  have 
been  attached  to  the  Democratic  party   from  my  boyhood;  have  be- 
lieved in  the  great  truths,  as  enunciated  by  the  'fathers  of  the  faith,' 
and  have  cherished  them  religiously,  knowing  that,  by  their  faithful 
appUcaUon  to  every  department  of  the  Government,  this   nation  has 
grown  up  from  struggUng  colonies  to  prosperous,  powerful,  and  sover- 
eign  States,"   declared   Cavanaugh.     "But,   sir,  when   I   see   Southern 
gentiemen  come  up,  as  I  did  to-day,  and  refuse,  by  their  votes,  to  aid 
my   constituents,   refuse   to   place   the    actual   tiUer   of   the   soU,   the 
honest  industrious  laborer,  beyond  the  grasp  and  avarice  of  the  specu- 
lator, I  tell  you,  sir,  I  falter  and  hesitate."    Ibid..  505. 


[1  ■  I 


Th4  Homtitead  BUI  in  Congrt$i 


109 


Kansas,  continued  to  hold  its  own  fairly  well  in  the  North- 
west.    But  the  fact  that  the  South  was  in  control  of  a  party 
which  time  after  time  had  failed  to  pass  a  homestead  bill  was 
a  spot  which  no  amount  of  campaign  oratory  could  erase. 
For  five  years  the  grip  of  the  South  on  the  national  legis- 
lature was  so  strong  that  neither  house  passed  a  homestead 
bill.*     During  this  time  violent  debates  raged  around  the 
Kansas  troubles,  the  Lecompton  constitution,  the  assault 
upon  Sumner,  and  tiie  slavery  struggle  in  general.     How- 
ever, as  the  Republican  movement  gained  momentum,  the 
measure  was  pressed  more  vigorously  until,  on  February  1st, 
1859,  it  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  180  to  76,'  and  in 
the  Senate  the  opposition  succeeded  in  shelving  it  only  by 
the  casting  vote  of  Vice-president  Breckinridge.'     In  the 
House  only  seven  negative  votes  came  from  the  free  States 
and   only   five   affirmative   from   the   slave   States.     Sixty 
Democrats,  fifteen  Americans,  and  one  Republican  were  in 
the  negative  and  thirty-eight  Democrats  and  eighty-two  Re- 
publicans voted  affirmatively.     In  the  Senate  •  the  votes  to 
postpone  the  bill  were  all  Democratic,  and  all  but  seven  ^* 

*May  Si,  18A8,  the  Senate  voted  to  postpone  the  homestead  bill 
35  to  19,  all  Republicans,  with  the  exception  of  Bdl  (Tenn.),  Brod- 
erick  (Cal.),  Johnson  (Tenn.),  and  Stuart  (Mich.)  in  the  negative. 
Ibid.,  35  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  9S5S.  May  97,  the  biU  was  postponed  untU 
Januaiy  next  by  a  vote  of  30  to  99.  Ibid.,  9494-9496.  June  14,  Andrew 
Johnson  tried  to  have  the  vote  reconsidered,  but  faUed.  Ibid.,  3049- 
3044. 

»/6W.,  35  Cong.,  9  Sess,  795-797. 

'Feb.  17.  Ibid.,  1074-1076.  The  vote  stood  98  to  98.  Sanborn, 
Some  Political  AtjueU  of  Homuttad  Ltgitlation,  Am.  Hitt.  Rn., 
VI.,  39,  S3;  Sanborn,  Railroad  Land  OranU,  56,  57;  Terry,  Di» 
H«imiUUt0ng$i»tz-BnB«ffung.  D0ut*ch-Amtrika»iiek4  OttekiehtebUU- 
ttr,  Jahrgang  S,  Heft  3,  p.  8  seq. 

*Co%g.  aiobt.  35  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  1076. 

"^AUen  (R.  I.),  Bates  and  Bayard  (Del),  Bi^r  (Pa.).  Fitdi 
(Ind.),  Gwin  (CaL),  And  Lane  (Ore). 


194        The  PoUtical  Hittory  of  the  PubUc  Lands 

were  from  the  ilave  States.  The  negatives  included  eight- 
een Republicans,  nine  Democrats,"  and  one  American." 
The  fact  that  seven  of  the  Democratic  votes  were  from  the 
West  shows  how  necessary  it  was  for  the  South  to  be  con- 
siderate of  the  West  if  it  hoped  to  maintain  its  ascendancy 
in  the  federal  government. 

In  1884  the  homestead  bill  was  placed  in  direct  rivalry 
with  the  slavery  issue  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  and  in 
this  session  the  issue  was  intensified  by  the  bill  for  the  pur- 
chase of  Cuba.     The  friends  of  the  latter  measure  tried  to 
push  it  to  a  vote  while  its  opponents  tried  to  prevent  it  and 
used  the  homestead  bill  to  effect  their  purpose.     There  was 
a  long  wrangle  over  the  question  of  taking  up  the  rival 
bills.^*     Democratic  senators,  like  Douglas,  Andrew  John- 
son, and  Rice,  of  Minnesota,  who  tried  to  steer  a  middle 
course,  stated  that  by  insisting  on  the  homestead  biU  in 
preference  to  the  Cuban  bill,  the  friends  of  both  biUs  would 
be  antagonized  and  the  passage  of  the  former  would  be  en- 
dangered.    Republican   senators,  on   the  other  hand,  de- 
manded the  assurance  of  a  vote  on  the  homestead  bill  as  a 
price  of  permitting  a  vote  on  the  Cuban  bill.     This  the 
Democrats  refused  to  give.     "We  stand  upon  the  good  old 
Democratic  doctrine  of  opening  the  Territories  of  the  West 
as  homesteads  for  the  free  white  men  of  this  country,"  said 
Senator  Doolittle,"  of  Wisconsin,  "and  so  far  as  the  othei 
question  which   is   now   pending  is    concerned,   the   Cuban 
policy,  it  is  altogether  too  narrow  and  too  contracted  to 
meet  with  the  Republican  policy.     Sir,  we  propose  to  the 
"Bright  (Ind.),  Broderick  (Cal.),  Douglas  (Ills.),  Houston  (Tex.), 
Johnson    (Tenn.),    Pugh    (Ohio),    Rice    (Minn).    Smith    (Ore.),   and 
Stuart  (Mich.). 
"BcU  (Tenn.). 
-Feb.  95,  1M9,  Cong.  Olobt.  35  Cong.,  2  Sess,  1326,  1351-1363. 

^Ibid.,  1351. 


[.I 


Ths  Homeitead  BUI  in  Congrtu 


195 


people  of  lhi«  countrj  a  policy  which  looks  towards  open- 
ing the  free  Territories  of  the  West  as  homesteads  for  the 
white  men,  and  the  whole  of  Central  America,  the  whole  of 
the  intertropical  regions  of  this  continent,  as  homesteads 
for  the   free   colored   population   of   the   United   States.** 
When  Senator  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  branded  the  advocates 
of  homestead  demagogues,  Wade,"  of  Ohio,  replied:     "I 
am  very  glad,  too,  that  this  question  has  at  length  come  up: 
I  am  glad,  too,  that  it  has  been  antagonized  with  this  nigger 
question.     [Laughter.]     We   are  'shivering  in   the  wind,* 
are  we,  sir,  over  your  Cuba  question?    You  may  have  oc- 
casion to  shiver  on  that  question  before  you  are  through 
with  it.     Now,  sir,  I  have  been  trying  here  for  nearly  a 
month  to  get  a  straightforward  vote  upon  this  great  meas- 
ure of  land  to  the  landless.     I  glory  in  that  measure.     It 
is  the  greatest  that  has  ever  come  before  the  American  Sen- 
ate, and  it  has  now  come  so  that  there  is  no  dodging  it.     The 
question  will  be,  shall  we  give  niggers  to  the  niggerless,  or 
land  to  the  landless?     [Applause  in  the  galleries.]**     The 
Ohio  senator's  blunt,  laconic  phrase,  "niggers  for  the  nigger- 
less, or  land  to  the  landless,"  was  an  accurate  sUtement  of 

the  issue.  '     i^ 

In  the  Congress  which  convened  the  following  year  (1869) 
the  Democrats  had  a  clear  majority  of  eleven  in  the  Senate 
and  in  the  House  there  were  one  hundred  and  nine  Repub- 
licans, eighty-eight  administration  Democrats,  thirteen  anti- 
Lecompton  Democrats,  and  twenty-seven  Americans."  So 
strong  was  the  sectional  feeling  that  the  House  was  unable 
to  elect  a  speaker  until  February  1,  1860. 

On  the  fifteenth  of  February,  Galusha  A.  Grow,  of  Penn- 

^ihid.,  isas,  1S54.  

"Rhodes,  II,  41T,  418.    AU  but  fwr  of  the  Americans  were  from 

the  South. 


196        The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Land$ 

sylvania,  introduced  a  homestead  biU  "  which  was  referred 
to  the  committee  on  agriculture,  from  which  committee 
Lovejoy,  of  Illinois,  chairman,  reported  it  back  on  March 
6th."  Lovejoy  moved  to  refer  it  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole  and  he  notified  the  House  that  he  would  move  to  re- 
consider the  vote  by  which  it  might  be  referred.     He  said 


HOUSE    VOTB    ON    HOMESTEAD    BILL,    MARCH    12,    1860.      WOW-VOTIWO    DIS- 
TRICTS IN  STATES  CASTING  ONE  OR  MORE  VOTES  HOT  INDICATED 

that  his  purpose  was  to  put  the  bill  in  such  a  position  that 
it  could  be  taken  up  when  the  House  was  not  too  much  en- 
grossed. There  was  objection  to  this  course  by  the  op- 
ponents of  homestead  who  charged  that  his  purpose  was  to 
shut  ofF  debate.  It  was  moved,  after  the  bill  had  been  re- 
ferred to  the  committee  rf  the  whole,  to  lay  the  motion  to 
reconsider  on  the  table,  but  the  motion  was  voted  down  68 
to  115  and  Love  joy's  motion  to  reconsider  was  entered  on 

"Cong,  aiobt,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  7M. 
"Ibid.,  1014,  1015. 


The  Homestead  BiU  in  Congresi 


197 


the  journal."     Six  days  later,  Lovejoy  called  up  the  mo- 
tion to  reconsider  and  moved  the  previous  question  which 
was  decided  in  the  affirmative  106  to  67.'*°     Immediately 
he  moved  that  the  bill  be  engrossed  and  read  a  third  time 
on  which  he  called  the  previous  question.     Before  the  mo- 
tion was  carried  Branch,  of  North  Carolina,  tried  unsuc- 
cessfully to  have  the  bill  laid  on  the  table.     Lovejoy  then 
demanded  the  previous  question  on  the  passage  of  the  bill 
which  was  carried  116  to  66.     All  debate  was  shut  off.     The 
friends  of  homestead  in  the  House  knew  they  had  an  over- 
whelming majority  and  they  did  not  intend  to  allow  a  long 
debate  which  could  only  result  in  sectional  bickering.     There 
is  no  need  to  recount  the  details  of  the  vote ;  the  map  speaks 
louder  than  words.     Only  one  affirmative  vote  came  from 
a  slave  State  (Missouri)  and  but  two  negatives  from  the 
free  States  (Pennsylvania  and  Delaware).     The  Republi- 
cans voted  en  masse  in  the  affirmative — they  were  manufac- 
turing campaign  ammunition. 

When  the  House  bill  reached  the  Senate,"^  Andrew  John- 
son had  already  introduced  a  homestead  bill,*^  but  its  con- 
sideration had  been  postponed  from  time  to  time."  A  little 
over  a  week  after  its  introduction,  Johnson,  from  the  com- 
mittee on  public  lands,  reported  the  House  bill  back  to  the 
Senate  with  the  recommendation  that  the  Senate  bill  be  sub- 
stituted for  it.''*  Grow's  bill  was  much  more  liberal  than 
Johnson's.  The  former  extended  privileges  to  all  persons 
who  had  filed  their  intention  of  becoming  citizens ;  the  latter 

»Ibid.,  1015. 

"March  IS,  1860.    Ibid.,  1114,  1115. 
"March  13,     Ibid.,  1117. 
"Dec,  90,  1869.     Ibid.,  53,  190. 
•Ibid..  874,  949,  1091,  1047,  1048. 

"March  23,  1860.     Ibid.,  1999,  1993.     The  House  bfll  is  printed  in 
Ibid.,  1508,  and  in  8tnat0  Joumai,  36  Cong.,  1  Sesf.,  445-447. 


ft  ' 
It  'i  ', 


198       The  Political  History  of  the  PvbUc  Lands 

was  confined  to  those  already  inhabitants  and  denied  the 
benefits  to  those  who  might  come  into  the  country  subsequent 
to  its  passage.  The  House  bill  applied  to  any  person  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age;  the  Senate  biU  to  heads  of  famiUes 
only.  The  former  included  all  lands  subject  to  pre-emp- 
tion; the  latter  confined  itself  to  lands  subject  to  private 
entry  and  to  alternate  sections.  In  making  his  report  John- 
son stated  tht.t  no  bill  containing  the  provisions  of  the  House 
biU  could  pass  the  Senate  and,  therefore,  suggested  that  all 
friends  of  homestead  should  make  the  best  of  the  situation 
and  take  what  they  could  get.^' 

The  debate  was,  as  usual,  sectional  with  a  strong  political 
flavor  due  to  the  approaching  conventions.     The  opponents 
of  homestead  tried  hard  to  shove  the  bill  aside  *«  and  to  in- 
troduce amendments  designed  to  drag  out  the  discussion,  but 
the  RepubUcans  showed  skill  in  parliamentary  and  political 
manoBuvers.     The  friends  of  homestead  had  succeeded,  in 
spite  of  vigorous  opposition,  in  postponing  the  consideration 
of  the  Senate  bill  with  the  understanding  that  the  House 
bill  should  receive  consideration."     In  that  way  they  got 
the  bill  before  the  Senate,  even  though  the  committee  did,  as 
we  have  seen,  recommend  that  the  Senate  bill  should  be  sub- 
stituted. 

The  South  used  as  its  main  weapon  of  attack  the  argu- 
ment that  the  bill  was  an  aboUtion  measure,  a  bonus  to  in- 
duce men  to  immigrate  to  the  new  Territories  on  condition 
that  aid  societies  should  pay  their  expenses  to  get  there." 
Doolittle,  of  Wisconsin,  frankly  asserted  that  homestead 
would  people  the  Territories  with  free  white  men  and  prevent 

'Cong.  Gloha,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1297  seq. 

-AprU  S.     Ibid..  1548-1551;   AprU  9.     Ibid,.   1619,  1620. 

"March  13.    I6W..  1119,  1120;  AprU  3.    /6W.,  1506-1508. 

■AprU  5.    Speech  of  R.  W.  Johnson,  of  Arkansas.    I6W.,  IMO,  IMl. 


The  Homeitead  BiXL  in  Congrea 


190 


their  "Africanization  through  the  introduction  of  negro 
slaves."  *'     The  adoption  of  this  policy,  said  he,  would  tend 
to  bring  on  a  "final  settlement  of  the  whole  negro  question.** 
A  statement  of  this  kind  was  eagerly  seized  upon  by  the 
"fire-eating"  senators  of  the  type  of  Mason,  of  Virginia, 
and  Wigfall,  of  Texas.     The  former  called  Andrew  John- 
son's attention  to  the  fact  that  the  measure  was  a  "struggle 
for  empire  and  was  supported  by  a  party  calling  itself  the 
Republican  party  which  has  only  one  principle  of  cohesion — 
opposition  to  the  condition  of  slavery.""**     Johnson  de- 
plored the  fact  that  Doolittle  and  Mason  had  brought  in 
slavery  in  connection  with  homestead  because  there  was  no 
connection.     Just  because  the  Republican  party  supported 
the  homestead  bill,  he  argued,  there  was  no  reason  why  the 
Democrats  should  not.     He  claimed  it  was  a  Democratic 
measure  and  that  the  Republicans  had  shown  their  sagacity 
by  embracing  it."     With  this  WigfaU  took  issue.""     He  de- 
nied it  was  a  Democratic  measure.     What  right  had  John- 
son to  say  it  was  a  Democratic  measure  when  the  Demo- 
crats were  against  it?  he  demanded.     "The  Republicans 
had  made  it  a  part  of  their  platform,"  he  exclaimed,  "and 
vet  when  they  are  telling  us  that  it  is  a  measure  which  is 
eminently  calculated   to  cut   our  throats,  and  we  believe 
that  they  are  at  least  telling  the  truth  in  that,  che  Senator 
from  Tennessee  complains  that  we  are  not  willing  to  sit 
"AprU  10.    Ibid.,  16S9.    Doolittle  also  stated  that  it  would  emanci- 
pate the  poor  non-«laveholding  class  of  whites  in  the  South  from  the 
control  of  capltaL    Ibid.,  1631. 
"April  10.    Ibid.,  1635  seq. 
"April  11.    Ibid.,  1640-1654. 

*'Ibid.,  1656-1659.  A  few  days  before  Wigfall  had  asserted  that 
homestead  was  an  electioneering  trick  of  the  Republicans  to  appeal 
to  the  foreign  population.  April  4.  Ibid.,  1537.  Johnson,  of  Arkansas, 
and  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  also  accused  the  Republicans  of  making 
political  capital  out  of  it    March  83.    Ibid.,  1397. 


•   1 


«00       The  Political  History  of  the  PvbUe  Lande 

down  and  have  our  throats  cut  quietly,  because,  Tennessee, 
forsooth,  in  eighteen  hundred  and  forty  sometime  or  other, 
introduced  the  measure  through  her  member  [himself]   of 
the  other  House."    These  frank  statements  were  exceed- 
ingly embarrassing  for  the  Democratic  senators  from  the 
West.     Pugh,  of  Ohio,  denied  that  it  was  a  party  measure 
and  said  that  the  Republicans  supported  it  because  it  was 
popular.''     Douglas,  who  at  this  time  was  between  two 
fires,  did  not  think  that  the  slavery  question  ought  to  have 
been  grafted  onto  it,  and  expressed  the  hope  that  the  meas- 
ure would  come  to  a  speedy  vote.'*     Senator  A.  0.  P.  Nichol- 
son, of  Tennessee,  who  represented  a  "compromise  area," 
took  middle  ground.""*     He  did  not  fear  an  extensive  exodus 
from  the  old  States  because  the  comforts  of  the  old  civiliza- 
tion and  the  hardships  of  the  new  would  deter  many  from 
migrating  and  the  provisions  of  the  Senate  bill  safeguarded 
the  interests  of  the  old  States.     "I  therefore  discard  all 
sectional  considerations,  as  entitled  to  no  legitimate  influ- 
ence in  deciding  upon  the  merits  of  the  measure,"  said  he. 
"If  men  opposed  to  the  institution  of  slavery  avail  them- 
selves of  its  benefits,  they  will  certainly  be  no  more  opposed 
to  it  on  their  farms  in  the  far  West,  than  in  the  localities 
from  which  they  may  emigrate.     I  cherish  the  confident  be- 
lief and  hope  that  the  emigrants,  when  withdrawn  from 
constant  contact  with  professional  agitators  in  the  crowded 
towns  and  cities,  and  when  removed  from  the  influence  of 
that  mysterious  susceptibility  to  excitement  observable  in 
dense  populations,  will  become  liberalized,  and  be  taught 
moderation  and  conservatism  in  their  new  homes." 

Several  amendments  were  introduced  by  Southern  sena- 
» April  4.   Cong.  OUthe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1433  seq;  April  11.    lb%d„ 
1656,  1657. 
••April  11.    I6W.,  1660. 
••Jdarcb  19.    IbUL^  1919-1S9S. 


The  Homettead  BiU  in  Congreu 


ffOl 


tors  designed  to  embarrass  or  to  modify  the  bill.    Clingman, 
of  North  Carolina,  moved  to  strike  out  the  original  bill 
and  substitute  for  it  a  bill  which  provided  for  the  issue  of 
warrants  donating  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land  to 
every  citizen  and  head  of  a  family."     WigfaU,"  of  Texas, 
and  Clement  C.  Clay,"  of  Alabama,  introduced  amendments 
providing  for  th(    ..-jsion  of  the  public  lands  to  the  States 
in  which  they  wer   situated.     In  addressing  the  Senate  on 
his  amendment,  Wigfall  took  up  the  statement,  made  by 
Senator  Nicholson,  that  the  homestead  bill  would  attach 
people  to  the  federal  government  because  they  would  be 
grateful  to  it,  and  declared  that  this  was  just  what  was  un- 
desirable; he  did  not  want  people  to  become  attached  to 
the  federal  government."     The  States,  he  said,  ought  to  ad- 
minister the  public  lands. 

The  provisions  in  the  Senate  bill  which  denied  its  bene- 
fits to  aliens  who  might  come  into  the  country  subsequent  to 
its  passage  and  confined  itself  to  lands  subject  to  private 
entry  and  to  alternate  sections  hit  the  West  hard  and  were 
very  odious  to  Republican  senators  from  that  section.** 
Wilkinson,*^  of  Minnesota,  suid  the  Republicans  did  not 
want  homestead  to  be  a  party  measure,  but  if  the  Demo- 
crats opposed  it  on  sectional  or  party  grounds,  his  party 
was  ready  to  meet  them.  It  would  then  go  on  record,  said 
he,  that  the  Democratic  party  defeated  and  resisted  a  Uberal 
homestead  bill.     He  protested  that  the  Senate  bill  was  not 

"March  19  and  99.    Ibid.,  1919,  1993^1995. 

"April  11.     Ibid..  1656. 

"AprU  9.    Ibid..  1619. 

"April  11.  Ibid.,  1658,  1659.  Andrew  Johnson  was  much  opposed 
to  cession.  He  said  it  was  brought  forward  to  antagonise  homestead. 
Ibid.,  1654. 

"St.  Pttvr  TribwM,  May  9,  1860. 

*  April  8.    Ooi^.  aiob0j  36  Cong,  1  Sess..  U0B-U19. 


if  I 


t 


lii 
111 


;  ?  '• 


i80«        The  PoUtical  History  of  the  Public  Landi 

liberal  enough.  Confining  homestead  entries  to  alternate 
sections,  or  to  lands  open  to  private  entry,  he  said,  would 
scatter  population  and  induce  speculation.  He  also  in- 
sisted that  foreigners  ought  to  be  given  the  same  privileges 
they  had  under  the  pre-emption  law.  Doolittle,*'  of  Wis- 
consin, said  that  the  people  of  his  State  were  almost 
unanimous  in  favor  of  homestead  *'  and  that  he  supported 
the  present  bill  because  it  would  be  followed  by  another  en- 
actment which  would  withhold  from  sale  all  public  lands 
until  they  shall  have  been  opened  for  settlement  for  a  long 

time.** 

The  course  of  the  homestead  bill  in  the  Senate  can  not 
be  understood  without  keeping  in  mind  the  fact  that  the 
atmosphere  of  Washington  was  surcharged  with  politics. 
Two  threatening  clouds  hung  low  on  the  horizon — the 
Democratic  convention  to  meet  at  Charleston,  April  «3rd, 
and  the  Republican  convention  at  Chicago,  May  16th.  The 
Republican  senators  were  handling  the  situation  with  the 
confidence  of  men  who  knew  their  antagonists  were  on  the 
defensive.  The  Democrats,  on  the  other  hand,  were  show- 
ing signs  of  worry  and  dissension.*'  The  vulnerable  point 
in  the  Democratic  line  of  defense  was  the  Western,  and  es- 
pecially the  Northwestern  wing.  Men  like  Rice,  of  Minne- 
sota, Douglas,  of  Illinois,  Latham,  of  California,  and  Pugh, 
of  Ohio,  put  their  own  political  lives  and  their  State  parties 
in  jeopardy  by  olstructing  a  reasonable  homestead  bill. 
The  large  number  of  German  voters  in  their  section  were  in 

«•  April  10.    Cong.  Olobt,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess,  1631. 

"Resolution  of  Legislature  of  Wisconsin,  March  28,  1860.  Btnatt 
Hit.  Doc,  36  Cong.,  1  Seas.,  Doc.  No.  46. 

••  Referring  to  a  bill  pending  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

•Wash.  Corr.,  Tri-We«kly  CharUtton  Mercury,  March  90  and  94; 
y.  Y.  Daily  Tribwu,  March  19,  1860;  Wash.  Corr,  Baltxmort  Sun, 
March  IS,  1860;  Wash.  Corr.,  LomttnOt  Daily  Courier,  April  18,  I860. 


1 


Tht  UomaUad  B«&  In  Congireai 


HCM 


no  mood  to  be  trifled  with  after  their  experiences  with  Know- 
nothingism.  There  were  men  in  the  "Cotton  Kingdom,** 
like  Toombs,*'  of  Georgia,  and  Clay,"  of  Alabama,  who 
were  willing  to  yield  a  point  on  principles  of  political  ex- 
pediency, if  for  no  other  reason. 

Realizing  the  danger  of  the  defection  of  the  Northwest- 
em  senators  and  the  possibility  of  a  Republican  coup  d^iiai 
and  keeping  in  mind  the  coming  presidential  campaign,  the 
Southern  leaders  took  a  new  tack.  They  decided  to  cease 
their  efforts  to  defeat  Johnson's  bill  and  to  employ  the  tac- 
tics of  1854  by  passing  a  homestead  bill  which,  if  not  like 
Hunter's  substitute,  was  only  a  nominal  homestead  meas- 
ure. 

On  the  eleventh  of  April,  Andrew  Johnson  withdrew  the 
original  Senate  bill  (which  had  been  moved  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  House  bill)  and  by  the  authority  of  the  com- 
mittee on  public  lands  introduced  a  new  bill  as  a  substitute 
for  the  House  bill.*"  What  the  provisions  of  this  bill  were 
is  of  small  consequence  for  our  purpose.  In  the  main  it 
was  much  the  same  as  the  first  one.  The  same  day  Wade 
(Ohio)  tried  to  have  a  day  fixed  for  the  final  vote  on  the 
homestead  bill.  In  this  he  was  unsuccessful  but  he  suc- 
ceeded in  stirring  up  a  lively  debate  during  which  John- 
son, of  Arkansas,  moved  to  refer  the  House  and  Senate  bills 
with  amendments  to  the  committee  on  public  lands  with  in- 

••See  TwnnbB's  vote  on  Wade's  lubstitate,  May  ».  Ocmg.  QUA;  M 
Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1998,  1999. 

"C.  C.  Clay,  Jr.,  to  Andrew  Johnson,  April  IS,  1860.  Johuom  Pa- 
pers Mss.  Clay  writes  that  he  will  support  a  homestead  bill  if  settlers 
would  be  charged  24  cents  per  acre.  If  a  cession  proriaion  was  added, 
and  if  its  benefits  would  be  confined  to  foreigners  who  had  declared 
their  intention  of  becoming  dtinns  at  the  date  of  tbe  approval  of 
the  bilL 

"Cong,  aiobt,  36  Cong,  1  Sess.,  1649,  1640. 


JtM       The  PoUtical  History  of  the  PvbUe  Lands 

structions  to  report  a  bill  by  a  fixed  day."  Pugh,  of  Ohio, 
objected  to  this  arrangement  because  he  feared  it  would  kill 
the  bill,  but  when  Andrew  Johnson  and  Wade  expressed 
their  satisfaction,  the  bills  were  recommitted  with  instruc- 
tions to  report  on  the  17th. 

At  the  stated  time  Andrew  Johnson  reported  a  new  bill." 
He  stated  that  the  various  propositions  before  the  Senate 
had  been  considered  very  carefully  by  the  committee  and 
that  the  intention  of  the  committee  in  framing  the  bill  was 
to  place  it  on  its  true  ground  and  to  put  it  in  such  shape 
that  it  would  receive  the  sanction  of  the  Senate,  the  House 
of  Representatives,  and  the  President."     He  paid  a  tribute 
to  his  colleagues  on  the  committee  on  public  lands,  who  he 
said  had  worked  in  good  faith,  and  in  a  spirit  of  compro- 
mise.    "There  has  been  a  magnanimity  on  the  part  of  the 
chairman  [R.  W.  Johnson],  and  of  the  gentleman  in  the 
opposition  on  the  other  side  [Harlan,  of  Iowa]  .  .  .  that 
has  commended  them,"  said  he,  "and  the  country  ought  to 
know  the  part  they  have  borne  in  the  consummation  of  this 
great  measure."     The  real  friends  of  homestead,  he  con- 
tinued, were  satisfied  with  this  bill,  and  the  main  purpose 
was  to  get  one  the  President  would  sign."*     The  statement 
of  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  R.  W.  Johnson,  which 
followed,  was  equally  conciliatory  and  plainly  intended  for 
Western  and  Southern  consumption.''     The  bill  was  a  con- 
cession, said  he,  not  going  as  far  as  was  demanded  either  by 
the  opponents  or  the   friends   of  the  original  homestead 
proposition.     The  committee  was  unanimous  in  agreeing, 

-April  11.   Cong.  Otobt,  38  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1659-1669. 

"April  17.    Ibid..  1748-1750. 

"On  April  nth  he  declared  he  did  not  fear  ft  veto.    Ibid.,  1654. 

"Johnson,  of  Arkansas,  said  the  same  thing.     Ibid.,  1T5S. 

"Ibid.,  1750-1753.    See  Nno  Orkmu  Dail]/  PiccyuM,  May  17,  18» 


Tht  Homeiiead  BiU  in  Congreit 


f05 


he  continued,  that  all  jwlitical  advantage  should  be  eschewed 
and  it  had  attempted  to  make  progress  conservatively.  He 
then  stated  in  detail  the  points  of  difference  between  the  new 
bill  and  the  House  bill,  the  most  important  of  which  are 
as  follows :  The  Senate  bill  gave  benefits  to  none  but  heads 
of  families,  making  a  difference  of  about  50%  in  the  number 
of  persons  who  would  be  entitled  to  claim  the  benefits  of 
the  act.  The  new  bill  required  a  residence  of  five  years  plus 
a  payment  of  twenty-five  cents  per  acre  and  included  only 
lands  which  were  subject  to  private  entry.  It  also  re- 
quired aliens  to  declare  their  intention  of  becoming  citizens 
when  they  filed,  while  the  House  bill  gave  them  two  years 
after  the  five  years'  residence  to  complete  their  naturaliza- 
tion. At  the  end  of  thirty-five  years  lands  unsold  and  held 
at  the  lowest  graduated  price  of  twelve  and  one-half  cents 
per  acre  were  to  be  ceded  to  the  States  in  which  they  were 
situated."* 

Even  with  this  very  limited  homestead  bill  the  Southern 
Democrats  were  not  anxious  for  a  vote  on  it  before  their 
national  convention  and  succeeded  in  postponing  it  until 
alter  that  event."' 

The  Republicans  continued  their  fight  in  behalf  of  the 
House  bill.  Grimes,  of  Iowa,  said  there  was  no  use  to 
cherish  the  delusion  that  the  Senate  bill  was  a  homestead 
bill;  it  was  a  mere  graduation  and  pre-emption  measure." 
Accordingly,  the  Iowa  Senator  moved  an  amendment  de- 
signed to  include  unmarried  men  over  twenty-one  years  of 

"Later  changed  to  80  years.  May  9.  Cong.  Globe,  36  Coag.,  1  Sess, 
3000,  9009.  Clark,  of  New  Hampshire,  moved  to  strike  out  the  ces- 
sion clause,  but  it  was  lost  7  to  48  with  all  affirmative  votes  from 
New  England  and  one  each  from  Maryltmd  and  New  Jersey.  Ibid., 
1999. 

"April  19.   Ibid.,  1801,  1809.    It  was  postponed  until  Mi^  9. 

"April  19.    Ibid.,  im. 


«06       Th0  PoUtkal  Huiory  of  the  Public  Lanth 


f  ■ 

f 


.  BT 


age."     The  close  Yote  on  thii  amendment,  «7  to  «8,  and 
the    reluctance    of   certain    senators    to    vote    shows    the 
strength  of  the  friends  of  a  true  homestead  bill  and  that 
the  Southern  leaders  had  to  crack  the  partj  whip  over 
the  heads  of  their  Western  allies.     Indeed,  a  few  minutes 
later  Wilkinson   (Rep.,  Minn.)   moved  an  amendment  to 
extend  the  provisions  of  the  bill  to  lands  not  subject  to 
private   entry   and   to   allow   the  location   of  eighty  acre 
claims  on  lands  held  at  two  dollars  and  a  half  per  acre.'" 
Without  this  provision  the  bill  was  of  Uttle  value  to  his 
State.     The  question   of  bringing  land  into  the  market 
was  dependent  upon  the  wiU  of  the  chief  executive  and  not 
upon  law,  and  therefore  it  was  unjust  to  put  Minnesota 
in  the  same  class  with  Iowa  and  the  Southwestern  States 
since  there  were  lands  in  Minnesota  which,  although  they 
had  been  surveyed  for  many  years,  had  not  been  offered  for 
sale.     Besides  this,  a  few  years  previous  the  federal  govern- 
ment had  donated  several  million  acres  of  land  to  Minnesota 
for  railways  and  the  alternate  sections  along  these  roads 
had  been  reserved  by  the  government  and  held  at  $«.60 
per  acre.     Without  WUkinson's  amendment  this  vast  area 
would  have  been  excluded  from  the  operation  of  the  home- 
stead law.     At  the  request  of  his  Democratic  coUeague, 
Rice,  the  amendment  was  modified  so  that  it  excluded  the 
railroad  lands  and  in  that  form  it  passed,  S8  to  21,  after 
several  desperate  attempts  had  been  made  to  avoid  a  vote  by 
adjourning,  several  of  the  Southern  senators  being  absent. 
This  provision  set  at  naught  aU  the  efforts  at  compromis^ 
on  the  part  of  the  committee  on  public  lands  and  made  the 
bill  so  obnoxious  that  the  South  could  not  have  voted  for 
it.     It  is  evident  that  the  Southern  leaders  had  been  caught 
napping  and  that  they  were  very  much  alarmed.     A  long 
-Mays.    Cony.  0'to6#,  86  Cong,  1  Sess,  IMl-lSM.    '  Ibid.,  iOOa-MOi. 


Th0  Hometttad  BUI  kt  Congr$a$ 


%m 


wrangle  ensued  during  which  the  Democratic  leaders  tried 
to  have  the  vote  on  the  amendment  reconsidered.**  After 
several  such  motions  had  been  rejected,  the  Senate  adjourned 
and  so  the  matter  was  left  undecided.  The  next  day  Rice, 
who  no  doubt  had  been  lectured  by  the  Democratic  leaders, 
stated  that  the  amendment  went  farther  than  had  been  in- 
tended, the  object  having  been  simply  to  put  the  present 
settlers  upon  an  equality  with  those  who  mi^t  come  later.** 
Wilkinson,  however,  stood  by  his  guns  and  again  fired  a 
broadside  against  the  bill.  He  said  it  amounted  to  but  lit- 
tle else  than  to  put  the  government  lands  into  the  market, 
to  have  all  the  valuable  lands  sold  to  speculators,  and  to 
leave  the  worthless  land  to  settlers.  He  insisted  that  his 
amendment  was  vital  to  the  bill.  Johnson,  of  Arkansas,  re 
torted  that  the  Republicans  were  trying  to  fix  the  bill  so 
that  the  Senate  would  refuse  to  pass  it,  or  if  it  did,  to  force 
the  President  to  veto  it  and  then  charge  the  Democratic 
party  with  its  defeat.**  Wilkinson's  amendment  *ter 
much  debate,  was  stricken  out,"  but  Douglas,  who  n«      had 

''Ibid.,  9005-0011. 

"May  10.  Ibid.,  8089  seq.  The  day  before  he  saidt  "I  was  sincere 
in  offering  the  amendment;  and  there  is  no  power  upon  the  face  of 
the  earth,  poliUcal,  personal,  or  other,  that  will  induce  me  to  with- 
draw it,  or  to  move  a  reconsideration.  I  wish  now  to  say,  if  the 
principles  embodied  in  the  bUl  reported  by  the  committee  are  Just 
and  correct,  they  are  only  being  made  more  perfect  by  the  amend- 
ment which  I  offered.  ...  I  am  compelled,  with  all  due  deference  to 
every  Senator,  to  say  that  it  strikes  me  that  the  bill,  in  the  riiape 
which  it  is  in,  will  be  construed,  by  those  urho  shall  hereafter  exam- 
ine it,  as  a  measure  that  was  intended  to  take  from  the  other  side 
of  the  Senate  the  credit  of  passing  a  homestead  bill.  Without  this 
amendment  it  is  a  bill  that  will  be  worthless  to  a  large  majority  of 
the  people  of  the  Northwest."  Ibid.,  9007.  It  wiU  be  remembered 
that  Mr.  Rice  is  speaUng  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Charleston 
convention  and  that  he  was  a  Douglas  supporter. 

''Ibid.,  9035,  9086. 

"Ibid.,  9038,  9039. 


■f 


11 


t08       Th0  PolUieal  History  of  the  PvbUe  Lands 

completely  severed  his  relations  with  the  extreme  wing  of 
his  party,  introduced  another  amendment  which  was  quite 
similar  to  it,  but  it  was  rejected  M  to  81,  with  Republicans, 
except  Douglas  and  Rice,  in  the  affirmative  and  Democrats 
and  Americans  in  the  negative.'"     Douglas  was  now  bidding 


8B1TATE  VOra  OK  WAOE'S  MOTIOIT  TO  BVBSmxm  HOVSC  BOUSnAO  MtX. 
TOB  SKKATX  BILL,  MAT  9,  1860 

for  Northwestern  votes  without  considering  so  carefully  as 
formerly  what  the  "fire-eaters"  thought. 

The  Republicans  made  an  effort,  May  9th,  to  defeat  the 
Senate  bill  when  Wade  moved  to  substitute  the  House  bill 
for  it.  The  motion,  which  was  lost  26  to  81,  was  supported 
by  twenty-three  Republicans  and  three  Democrats,  Doug- 
las (Ills.),  Rice  (Minn.),  and  Toombs  (Ga.),  while  the 
negative  vote  was  made  up  entirely  of  Democrats,  includ- 
ing Bright,  of  Indiana,  Gwin,  of  Califorina,  Johnson,  of 
Tennessee,  Lane,  of  Oregon,  Latham,  of  California,  and 
-Cong.  Qloh;  36  Cong.,  I  Seas.,  S039-9M1. 


Thg  Homtittad  BUI  in  Congrtu 


t09 


Pugh,  of  Ohio,  all  except  Johnson  extreme  Southern  lympa- 
thizen,  any  three  of  whom  might  have  turned  the  tidv.** 
The  wonder  is  that  the  Southern  senators  were  able  to  de- 
feat it.  One  thing  is  certain,  they  were  unable  to  prevent 
some  kind  of  a  homestead  bill  from  coming  to  a  vote  and 
they  were  compelled  to  permit  the  passage  of  a  bill  which 
conformed  far  more  closely  to  the  homestead  principle  than 
did  Hunter's  substitute.  The  following  day,  May  10th, 
Wade  again  moved  to  substitute  the  House  bill  but  it  was 
negatived  85  to  SO." 

Being  unable  to  carry  their  own  bill,  the  Republicans 
went  for  the  Senate  bill  on  its  final  passage,  which  was  by 
an  overwhelming  majority,  44  to  8."  All  the  Republicans 
voted  in  the  aiBrmative  with  the  exception  of  Hannibal  Ham- 
lin who  voted  in  the  negative  and  declared  it  was  not  a 
homestead  bill,  but  was  gotten  up  by  the  enemies  of  home- 
stead.*^ Jefferson  Davis  was  careful  to  state  that  he 
did  not  consider  it  a  homeb^ead  law.  He  voted  for  it  be- 
cause he  believed  it  a  good  measure  and  a  great  improve- 
ment over  the  existing  land  laws."* 

The  country,  especially  the  South  and  West,  had  its 
eyes  on  the  homestead  bill.  There  was  much  speculation 
as  to  what  course  the  House  would  take.  Probably  the 
Southern  leaders  desired  that  the  House  should  insist  on 
its  bill  and  thereby  cause  the  defeat  of  the  Senate  bill. 
However,  there  was  little  alarm  felt  in  the  South  at  the 


*^8»nat0  Journal,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  445-448  {  Cong.  Olobt,  36  CoDg.,  1 
Sen.,   1998,   1999. 

•Ibid.,  904S. 

"May   10.     Ibid.,  9043. 

"  Ibid.,  9043.  Harlan,  of  Iowa,  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wade, 
of  (Wo,  declared  that  they  yoted  for  the  bill  because  it  was  better 
than  nothing.    Ibid.,  1997,  1998,  90«>,  9043. 

•/6U.,  9043. 


Vt 


«10        The  Political  Hittory  of  the  Public  Lands 

passage  of  the  Senate  bill,  as  the  very  restricted  nature  of 
the  bill  was  known.*"*  For  this  very  reason  the  West  de- 
sired that  the  House  should  insist  as  strongly  as  possible  on 
the  bill."  In  the  opinion  of  the  New  York  Tribune  "  the 
bill  passed  by  the  Senate  was  not  much  better  than  no  biU 
at  aU. 

When  the  Senate  bill  reached  the  House  it  was  referred 
to  the  committee  on  public  lands  where  it  rested  until  May 
21st  when  Lovejoy  moved  that  the  committee  be  discharged 
from  further  consideration  and  that  it  be  brought  before 
the  House  for  action."     He  moved  to  substitute  the  original 
House  bill  for  it ;  the  gag  was  applied  and  the  bOl  was  rushed 
through   by    overwhelming   majorities.     Eight   days   later 
the  Senate  made  short  work  of  the  House  biU  when  John- 
son, of  Arkansas,  moved  that  it  be  disagreed  to."     Wade 
tried  to  have  the  vote  postponed  because  of  the  absence  of 
certain  senators  favorable  to  the  bill,  but  Johnson  insisted 
and  by  a  vote  of  29  to  20  the  bill  was  disagreed  to.     The 
House  still  insisted  on  its  bill  and  asked  for  a  committee  of 
conference.^*     The   Senate  complied,"   but   the  committee 
was  unable  to  agree  and  each  House  resolved  to  insist  on 
its  measure."     Another  conference  committee  was  appointed 
but  it  also  failed  to  come  to  an  agreement,  and  the  chair- 
man of  the  respective  committees  in  both  houses  asked  for 

"  Tri-Weekly  Charleston  Mercury,  June  26,  1860. 

'"  Minnetotian  and  Timet  (St.  Paul),  May  27,  1860. 

"Daily,  May  26,  1860. 

"Cotiff.  Globe,   36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  2221,  2222. 

"May   29.     Ibid.,  2420. 

"May  30.  Ibid.,  2427.  Barksdale,  of  Mississippi,  moved  to  recon- 
sider the  vote  by  which  the  House  insisted  on  its  amendnwnt,  but 
Grow  moved  that  the  motion  I>e  laid  on  the  table,  which  carried  IW 
to  72.    Ibid.,  2477,  2478. 

•^May  30.    Ibid.,  2462. 

"June  11.    Ibid.,  2813,  2814,  2846. 


The  Homestead  BiU  in  Congrest 


nil 


further   conferences.^'^     The   third   conference   reached   an 
agreement.'" 

Schuyler  Colfax  (Ind.),  from  the  House  committee,  stated 
that  the  report  was  not  satisfactory  to  either  him  or  to 
his  Republican  colleague,  Windom,  of  Minnesota,  but  it  was 
the  best  they  could  get  and  they  had  served  notice  on  the 
Senate  members  of  the  conference  that  they  regarded  the 
bill  as  a  single  step  in  advance — an  avant  courier,  and  that 
they  would  demand  at  the  next  session  a  liberal  law.  Mr. 
Colfax  explained  briefly  the  nature  of  the  new  bill.'"  The 
Senate  bill  provided  that  pre-emptioners  now  on  the  public 
lands  might  remain  there  two  years  before  they  should  be 
required  to  purchase  their  lands,  but  they  should  pay  $1.26 
per  acre.  This  kept  them  from  the  benefits  of  the  home- 
stead bill.  In  order  to  protect  the  thousands  of  pre-emp- 
tioners from  the  fall  land  sales,  the  committee  decided  to 
allow  them  to  secure  their  homes  at  6214  cents  per  acre  and 
to  protect  them  for  two  years.  The  Senate  bill,  said  Col- 
fax, was  so  limited  that  scarcely  any  land  in  Minnesota, 
Kansas,  Nebraska,  California,  Oregon,  or  Washington  came 
within  its  scope.  The  conference  bill  included  all  lands  sub- 
ject to  private  entry  and  all  odd  numbered  sections  of  sur- 
veyed lands  not  opened  to  public  sale.  By  the  Senate  bill 
a  settler  could  pay  for  his  land  and  secure  title  at  any  time 
within  five  years,  but  under  the  new  bill  he  could  not  do 
so  until  he  had  been  on  his  land  six  months.  Another  provi- 
sion of  the  Senate  bill  favorable  to  speculators  was  stricken 
out:  that  making  it  imperative  for  the  President  to  expose 
all  public  lands  for  sale  within  two  years  after  survey.     Citi- 

"June  14.    Ibid.,  89SS,  2988. 

"For  the  reports  of  the  respective  committees  see:   Senate,  June  19. 
Ibid..  3159;  House,  3178,  31^. 
"The  House  bill  is  printed  in  Ibid.,  9391. 


Ml 
111 


ft 


«12        The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

zens  or  those  who  had  declared  their  intention  of  becoming 
citizens  were  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  new  bill.  The 
House  conferees  were  unsuccessful  in  their  efforts  to  get  the 
Senate  members  to  allow  unmarried  men  over  twenty-one 
years  of  age  to  receive  the  benefits  of  the  bill. 

With  the  exception  of  the  provisions  confining  benefits  to 
married  men,  fixing  the  price  at  twenty-five  cents  per  acre, 
and  excluding  the  reserved  alternate  sections  in  railroad 
grants,  the  first  of  which  was  a  most  serious  restriction,  the 
new  bill  was  a  considerable  improvement  over  the  Senate 
bill.  Yielding  to  political  necessity,  both  houses  concurred 
in  the  report  by  overwhelming  majorities — 36  to  2  in  the 
Senate  ^o  and  115  tr.  51  in  the  House.*^ 

The  new  bill  was  by  no  means  a  clean-cut  homestead 
measure,  but  it  was  a  step  toward  a  new  order.  However, 
the  circumstances  under  which  it  passed  gave  it  an  un- 
pleasant flavor  and  to  the  West  it  seemed  that  the  course 
of  the  Democrats  was  shifty.  "The  Cotton  Democracy  of 
the  South  and  the  doughfaced  Democracy  of  the  North," 
said  the  St.  Paul  (Minn.)  Times,^"  "were  afraid  t-<  insult 
the  honest  toilers  of  the  Great  West  just  on  the  eve  of  a 
Presidential  contest,  and  so  at  the  last  moment  through  the 
untiring  exertions  of  the  Republicans  in  the  Senate  and  of 
the  House,  and  of  our  own  Republican  members  particu- 
larly, the  Bill  was  passed.  .  .  .  We  should  have  much  pre- 
ferred giving  away  160  acres  of  land  to  every  settler,  but  as 
we  could  not  get  that,  we  are  willing  to  take  the  next  thing 
and  wait  patiently  until  the  position  of  the  Republican 
party  will  enable  it  to  do  justice  to  the  hardy  pioneers  on 
our  frontier  settlements  who  do  more  towards   adding  to 

"June  19.     Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  3159. 

"June  19,    Ibid.,  3179. 

"June  23,  1860.    See  also  8t.  Pettr  Tribwu,  May  8,  1860. 


The  Homestead  BiU  in  Congrest 


flS 


the  wealth  of  the  country  than  all  the  gass  [sic]  expended 
in  the  capitol  of  the  nation."  Greeley's  Tribune,  which 
Rhett's  Charleston  Mercury  *'  pronounced  the  greatest  pa- 
per in  the  North,  with  an  influence  many  times  greater  than 
that  of  any  paper  in  the  country,  saw  some  good  in  the 
bill,  but  warned  "gentlemen  of  all  parties"  that  th«.  half 
loaf  was  accepted  only  for  what  it  was  and  that  the  friends 
of  the  free  homestead  principle  would  not  rest  until  their 
whole  object  was  attained.®* 

Whether  good  or  bad.  President  Buchanan  put  a  quietus 
on  the  hopes  and  fears  of  the  friends  and  enemies  of  the 
bill  by  vetoing  it  three  days  after  its  passage  and  three 
da  s  before  the  final  adjournment  of  Congress. 

Buchanan's  inaugural  address  was  an  attempt  to  satisfy 
both  North  and  South,*"*  but  on  the  question  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  his  words  were  decidedly  Northern  and  Western 
and  they  were  so  interpreted  by  both  enemies  and  friends 
of  homestead.  ".  .  .  It  is  our  cardinal  policy,"  said  he, 
"to  reserve  these  lands,  as  much  as  may  be,  for  actual  set- 
tlers, and  this  at  moderate  prices.  We  shall  thus  not  only 
best  promote  the  prosperity  of  the  new  States  and  Terri- 
tories, by  furnishing  them  a  hardy  and  independent  race 
of  honest  and  industrious  citizens,  but  shall  secure  homes 
for  our  children  and  our  children's  children,  as  well  as  for 
those  exiles  from  foreign  shores  who  may  seek  in  this  coun- 
try to  improve  their  condition  and  to  enjoy  the  blessings 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty."  **     In  commenting  on  *he  in- 

"Tri-Wcekly,  Nov.  IJ,  1860. 

**  Daily  Tribuiu,  June  21,  1860. 

"  Cf.  Rhodes,  II.,  9*6,  S46. 

"March  4,  1857.  Richardson,  Muiagei  and  Papen,  V.,  434.  In  his 
speech  on  the  veto,  June  33,  1860,  Andrew  Johnson  quoted  from  the 
inaugural  address  in  order  to  sliow  the  President's  inconsistency.  Conff. 
Gloht,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  3369. 


IS  I 


lir 

It* 


tl4        TJie  Political  Hiatory  of  the  Public  Landa 

augural,  the  Charleston  Courier"  expressed  its  approval 
of  it  as  a  whole,  but  in  relation  to  the  "policy  of  confining 
the  appropriation  of  our  vast  public  domain,  in  the  West- 
em  wilderness,  to  actual  settlers,  and  thereby,  for  the  ex- 
clusive benefit  of  the  new  States,"  it  was  not  prepared  to 
yield  "full  acquiescence."  The  North  Carolina  Standard^* 
interpreted  it  as  an  announcement  in  strong  terms  "of  his 
opposition  to  the  recent  squanc^ring  of  the  public  lands." 
"He  truly  says,"  continued  the  editorial,  "that  we  should 
never  forget  that  our  cardinal  policy  is  to  reserve  the  pub- 
lic lands  as  much  as  possible  for  ictual  settlers  at  moderate 
prices.  He  makes  a  just  and  kind  allusion  to  foreign  emi- 
grants." The  President's  first  annual  message  was  in  line 
with  his  previous  sentiments.®* 

During  his  term  of  office  Buchanan  fell  more  and  -^^ore 
under  the  influence  of  the  Southern  leaders."®  While  the 
homestead  bill  was  pending  in  Congress  predictions  were 
freely  made  that  he  would  veto  it.»^  After  the  split  in  the 
Democratic  party  at  the  Charleston  convention  it  is  prob- 
able that  the  Southern  senators,  who  made  practically  no 
opposition  to  the  more  liberal  bill  agreed  on  in  the  confer- 
ence committee,  preferred  to  have  the  measure  defeated  by 
a  Northern  President.  This  is  a  mere  conjecture  but  it 
is  within  the  bounds  of  probability.  At  least,  it  was  con- 
venient for  the  Republican  leaders  to  put  that  interpretation 
on  it.»2 

"  March  9,  1857. 

"March  11,  1857. 

"  Dec.  8,  1857.    Richardson.  Menage*  and  Paper*.  V.,  i59. 

"  Rhodes,  II.,  280,  281. 

"Wash.  Corr.,  Baltimore  Sun,  March  19,  1860;  N.  Y.  Daily  Tribune. 
March  19,  1860;  Wash.  Corr.,  Louieville  Daily  Courier.  AprU  9,  1860; 
True  Democrat  (LitUe  Rock,  Ark.),  AprU  14,  1860;  Ckiecgo  Journal. 
quoted  in  Minnesotian  and  Time*.  April  25,  1860. 

"St.  Peter  Tribune,  June  96,  1860. 


The  Homettead  Bill  in  Congress 


ns 


Read  in  connection  with  his  inaugural  and  first  annual 
message,  the  grounds  for  the  President's  veto  are  not  im- 
pressive."" The  message  declared  that  the  bill  lays  the 
ax  at  the  root  of  our  present  admirable  land  system.  The 
public  lands  remain  a  vast  resource  to  the  United  States 
and  in  case  of  war  we  shall  have  this  to  fall  back  on,  as 
it  may  become  security  for  public  loans.  The  people  of 
the  United  States,  it  continued,  have  never  had  an  agrarian 
sentiment  and  have  been  favorable  to  the  principle  of 
equal  rights  to  all,  but  this  bill  will  go  far  to  demoralize 
the  people  and  repress  the  noble  spirit  of  independence. 
He  objected  to  the  cession  clause  as  unconstitutional  and 
to  the  low  price  as  unjust  to  the  settlers  who  had  paid  $1.25 
per  acre,  to  the  holders  of  land  warrants,  and  to  the  govern- 
ment which  would  lose  revenue.  It  also  discriminated  be- 
tween the  agricultural  class  and  the  artisans  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  latter.  Similarly  it  worked  injustice  to  the  old 
States  by  offering  a  premium  to  their  inhabitants  to  leave. 
It  would  also  lead  to  speculation  because  large  numbers 
of  settlers  would  be  carried  out  by  capitalists  upon  agree- 
ments to  give  them  half  the  land  for  the  improvement  of 
the  other  half.  Another  serious  objection  was  the  distinc- 
tion made  between  foreigners  and  natural  bom  citizens.  It 
grants  land  to  naturalized  citizens  but  to  heads  of  house- 
holds only,  but  it  gives  the  right  to  foreigners  when  they 
file  their  intention  of  becoming  citizens  whether  heads  of 
households  or  not.  The  President  thought  this  might  be 
an  inadvertence,  but  nevertheless  it  was  in  the  bill  and  it 
would  bring  people  from  China  and  Eastern  nations  to  set- 
tle on  our  own  shores. 

Regardless  of  the  question  of  logic,  the  veto  was  as  good 
a  campaign  document  in  the  West  and  among  certain  people 
"June  S9,  1860.    Hicbardson,  Mtiia^tt  and  Paftr;  V.,  6OS-014. 


l1  1 


^ 


tl6       TA*  PoKtica/  Hiatory  of  the  PubUc  Landt 

in  the  East  as  the  Republicans  could  desire.     "The  veto 
of  the  half-and-half  Homestead  Bill,  by  Buchanan,  is  the 
crowning  infamy  of  the  Democratic  administration,"  ex- 
claimed the  St.  Paul  (Minn.)  DaQy  Timea.'*     •*Let  those 
who  are  now  shouting  for  Douglas  stop  and  consider  the 
fact,  that  the  head  and  chief  of  the  great  Democratic  party, 
James  Buchanan,  has  dashed  to  the  earth,  or  rather  he 
has  sought  to  dash  to  the  earth,  all  those  bright,  glowing 
hopes  recently  raised  in  the  breasts  of  thousands  of  hardy 
settlers  who  for  years  past  have  been  toiling  in  the  West 
for  a  livelihood  and  a  home.     What  more  evidence  can  the 
people   of   this   State  want,   of  the  hollow-heartedness   of 
Democracy,  than  this  act  of  James  Buchanan?     How  much 
longer  will  they  support  a  party  whose  aims  and  ends  have 
been  and  are  now  to  cripple  free  labor?  .  .  .  Look  at  the 
action  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  when  a  just 
and  genuine  Homestead  Bill  passed  the  House  and  came 
before  the  Senate  for  approval.    Who  voted  for  that  meas- 
ure?     Was    it    Democrats?      Not    a    bit    of    it.      From 
whence  came  the  most  untiring  opposition?     From  South- 
ern Slaveholders,  backed  by  Northern  Doughfaces  in  their 
employ.    When  these  Democrats  saw  that  it  was  quite  pos- 
sible their  opposition  to  the  measure  might  endanger  the 
election  of  their  nominee,  then  they  gave  in  their  adhesion 
to  a  half-and-half  bill  simply  to  catch  votes,  and  as  a  grand 
finale  the  great  chieftain  of  the  party,  having  the  power, 
came  in  and  vetoed  the  bill !"     Referring,  a  few  days  later, 
to  the  President's  assertion  that  this  bill  would  demoralize 
the  people  this  same  Republican   paper  said :  ®'     "Think 
of  that,  Western  men!  .  .  .  The  old  dotard!  don't  [sic]  he 

••June  26,  1860.    See  Philadelphia  North  American  and  U.  8.  Gaz€tt» 
(Rep.),  June  24  and  27,  1860,  for  Eastern  sentiment. 
"July  4,  1860. 


The  Homettead  BUI  in  Congreis 


117 


know  that  these  hardy  pioneers  would  knock  him  down 
should  he  tell  them  it  is  'charity'  for  the  Government  to 
give  them  what  actually  belongs  to  them  as  much  as  does 
the  sunlight  and  air?"  The  Dubuque  (Iowa)  Herald,**  a 
Douglas  organ,  commented  as  follows :  ''Last  Saturday  the 
old  reprobate,  who  now  sits  in  the  Presidential  chair  at 
Washington  vetoed  the  Homettead  BUI.  This  act  fills  up 
the  measure  of  James  Buchanan's  recreancy  to  Democratic 
principles — it  is  one  of  the  most  infamous  of  his  infamous 
administration.  The  slave  propagandists  demanded  that 
the  Bill  should  be  vetoed,  and  their  pliant  tool  was  swift 
to  obey  them.  Let  the  pimps  and  hirelings  of  the  old  sin- 
ner defend  this  last  act  of  his,  if  they  dare — ^Let  them  come 
before  the  masses  of  the  people  with  'Old  Buck's'  veto  of 
the  Homestead  Bill  on  their  banner,  and  ask  the  people 
to  vote  for  his  and  the  nigger  traders'  candidate  for  Presi- 
dent. They  dare  not  do  it.  They  dare  not  advocate  Breck- 
inridge on  such  a  platform  as  this." 

The  Bell-Everett  papers "  and  the  Breckinridge  press 
in  the  South"*  and  quite  generally  in  the  West  indorsed 
the  veto."'  While  the  bill  was  pending  and  during  the  cam- 
paign the  Western  Breckinridge  papers  challenged  the  sin- 
cerity of  the  Republicans  on  the  homestead  measure."' 
The  Washington  Conetitution,^''^  Buchanan's  organ,  ad- 
mitted that  "the  opposition  party,  in  and  out  of  Congress, 
are  making  strenuous  efforts  to  accumulate  partizan  cap- 
ital by  appealing,  through  a  bill  of  this  character,  to  direct 

"June  97,  I860. 

"  Botton  Co«ri«r,  June  27, 1860. 
"  The  Mututippian  (Semi- Weekly),  July  3,  I860. 
"KatuM  National  Democrat  (Lecompton),  July  19,  I860. 
"'Katuat  National  Democrat,  April  19,  1860;  Daily  National  Demo- 
erat  (Cleveland,  Ohio),  March  ^  and  April  91,  1860. 
*"June  93,  186a 


•':  f 


«18        The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landt 

interests  which  do  not  care  for  constitutional  objections," 
but  it  beheved  that  "the  desire  for  such  a  bill  has  been 
vastly  overrated."  It  expected  that  the  judgment  of  the 
people  would  sustain  the  President."' 

After  the  veto  message  had  been  read  in  the  Senate,  Re- 
publican senators  and  Andrew  Johnson  pressed  a  vote  on 
passing  it  over  the  veto  and  succeeded  in  thwarting  the  ef- 
forts of  the  Southern  senators  to  postpone  it  until  the  fol- 
lowing December."'    Johnson,  of  Arkansas,  said  he  never 
had  been  in  favor  of  the  biU  as  agreed  to  by  the  conference 
committee  and  he  charged  that  the  members  of  the  House 
committee  held  out  because  they  desired  for  political  pur- 
poses to  have  the  voice  of  the  executive."*    Andrew  John- 
son, in  his  not  too  delicate  manner,  denied  that  the  con- 
ference biU  deviated  from   any  principles  of  the  original 
Senate  bill  and  launched  a  most  scathing  philippic  against 
Buchanan  '•-ho,  he  said,  would  have  vetoed  any  kind  of  a 
homestead  biU."»    He  was  particularly  severe  on  that  por- 
tion of  the  message  which  dealt  with  foreigners.     He  as- 
serted that  unless  immigration  was  prohibited  by  law,  the 
best  thing  for  the  country  and  for  the  immigrants  was  to 
plant  them  on  the  land  as  fast  as  possible.     "I  am  con- 
strained to  say,"  he  continued,  "that  I  look  upon  this  ob- 
jection to  the  bill  as  a  mere  quibble  on  the  part  of  the  Presi- 
dent, and  as  being  hard-pressed  for  some  excuse  in  with- 
holding his  approval  of  the  measure;  and  his  allusion  to 
foreigners  in  this  connection  looks  to  me  more  like  the  ad 
captandum  of  the  mere  politician   or  demagogue,  than  a 
loll^'*  editorials  in  tlie  ConitUution,  March  U  and  16  and  Aug.  18, 

"-June  23.     Cong.  Olobe.  36  Cong..  1  Sess.,  3263,  3264.     Motion  to 
postpone  lost  19  to  26. 
"•June  23.    Ibid.,  3266. 
'"^Hne23.    /bid.,  3267-3270, 


The  Homeatead  Bill  in  Congrtat 


fl9 


grave  and  sound  reason  to  be  offered  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  in  a  veto  message  upon  so  important  a  meas- 
ure as  the  homestead  bill.'*  Johnson  did  not  think  that  any 
officer  of  the  government  would  construe  this  provision  as 
Buchanan  had,  because  if  his  argument  was  sound,  it  was 
equally  strong  against  our  whole  land  system  which  offered 


BOUSE  VOTK  ON  OBOW'S  BHX  BESBRTnTG  LARDS  lOB  RXTTUBS  TOB  TIN 
RABS,  MAT  22,  1860.  irOIf-TOTIITa  DISTBICTS  IN  BTATI8  OASTinO 
ONK  OB  MOBS  VOTES  NOT  INDICATED 


land  from  $1.26  per  acre  to  121/^  cents  per  acre  with  noth- 
ing to  prevent  foreigners  from  entering  the  lands  without 
even  becoming  citizens  of  the  United  States.^**' 

The  same  day  the  veto  message  was  read  the  bill  failed 
to  pass  over  the  veto  by  a  vote  of  27  to  18,  only  senators 
from  the  slave  States  voting  in  the  negative.**" 

The  Senate  killed  another  land  bill  which  had  passed  the 

"•  See  speech  of  Harlan,  of  Iowa.    Ibid.,  8271,  337i. 
•"June  23.    Ibid.,  3279. 


*to 


I 


The  PoUtical  History  of  the  PubUc  Land* 


House.     This  measure,  introduced  by  Grow,  reserved  the 
public  lands  for  actual  settlers  for  ten  years  after  survey 
and  opening  for  settlement.    It  had  been  before  the  House 
for  two  years  "«  and  in  January,  1859,  was  adopted  as  an 
amendment  to  a  homestead  bill  which  later  was  rejected.'** 
This  proposition  was  more  of  the  nature  of  a  campaign  doc- 
ument, as  the  RepubUcan  leaders  must  have  known  that  it 
had  not  the  slightest  chance  of  passing  the  Senate.     How- 
ever, in  1860,  it  went  through  the  House  by  the  usual  heavy 
majority,  10«  to  67,  with  every  Republican  on  the  affirmative 
side  and  the  solid  South,  with  three  or  four  exceptions  from 
the  border  States  in  the  negative."'     The  Senate  never  con- 
sidered it.»"    Of  course,  the  bill  was  popular  in  the  newer 
portions  of  the  West,  and  it  also  attracted  notice  else- 
where."'    In  the  light  of  the  subsequent  action  of  the  Re- 
pubhcan  majority  in  Congress,  the  sincerity  of  many  af- 
firmative votes  may  be  questioned.     The  bill  must  be  re- 
garded as  an  attempt  to  turn  the  land  situation  to  the  bene 
fit  of  the  Republican  party  by  embarrassing  the  Democrats 
and  by  emphasizing  the  friendUness  of  Republicans  for  the 
West  and  the  laboring  man.    The  biU  served  its  purpose, 

-•Con^.  Otoft,,,  34  Cong..  I  Sess.,  324,  1915;  35  Cong.,  9  Sess..  900,  m 
•-Jan.  20.    Ibid.,  493,  495,  726.  »»  .  »w.  *»»• 

im!\Zl^iii^^*^'  ^  ^°*"'  ^  **■••  ***'•  ««3.    See  also  Ibid.,  1093, 

"•/6id.,  2309. 

"aftnnMo/tan  and  TUnu  (St.  Paul).  June  6,  I860}  PhUadelphia  North 
AtMTxecm,  May  23,  1860.  *^ 


■pi 


CHAPTER  XIV 

ROMSaTSAD  AND  THE  ELECTION  OF  I860 

rpHE  election  of  1860  was  a  decisive  event  in  the  struggle 
■■•  between  the  North  and  the  South  and  slavery  was,  of 
course,  the  great  issue.  However,  there  were  men  in  the 
free  States,  East  and  West,  who  cared  not  whether  slavery 
"was  voted  up  or  down"; »  these  men  applied  different  tests 
to  the  parties  and  candidates. 

About  1854  the  homestead  measure  began  to  figure  quite 
prominently  as  an  issue  in  State  elections,  especially  in  the 
West;  and  by  1858  it  assumed  great  importance.  In  Iowa, 
for  example,  James  W.  Grimes,  the  anti-Democratic  candi- 
date for  governor,  in  1854,  made  homestead  one  of  the  lead- 
ing issiies.  This  State  had  a  large  pro-slavery  element,' 
80  large  in  fact  that  Grimes's  friends  advised  him  not  to 
denounce  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.'  The  Democratic  con- 
gressmen from  Iowa  had  supported  the  House  homestead 
bill,  and  the  Democratic  party  had  endorsed  a  liberal  law,* 
but  Grimes  made  a  direct  appeal  to  the  already  considerable 
number  of  German  voters  by  censuring  the  clause  in  the 
House  bill  discriminating  against  foreigners." 

•  Dodd,  Fight  for  tht  Northweit,  780-785. 

•Pelxer,  A.  C.  Dodge,  141;  Orime$  to  8.  P.  Chat;  Oct  10,  18M.    Sal- 
ter, Lift  of  Orimti,  54. 
'Grimes  to  Mrs.  Grimes,  June  18,  1854.    Ibid.,  53. 

*  Keokuk  (Iowa)  Ditpateh,  June  13,  1954. 

•Grimes's  "Address  to  the  People  of  Iowa,"  April  8,  1854.    Salter. 
Orimet,  SO, 

ttl 


Ut       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landt 


IK. 


imp- 


ml 


In  the  national  campaign  of  1856  the  homestead  policy 
iieem«  to  have  exercised  little  or  no  influence.  The  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  had  stirred  up  such  violent  feeling  that  it 
overshadowed  other  issues.  Neither  the  Democratic  nor 
the  Republican  national  conventions  declared  themselves  on 
homestead."  Fremont's  letter  of  acceptance  hinted  rather 
vaguely  at  Southern  opposition  to  homestead^  but  appar- 
ently the  time  was  not  ripe  for  a  positive  declaration  by 
either  of  the  great  parties. 

On  the  eve  of  the  campaign  of  1860  the  conventions  and 
papers  of  both  parties  in  the  West  vied  with  each  other  in 
praising  the  homestead  policy.     In  the  State  campaign  in 
Minnesota,  in  1869,  both  parties  incorporated  homestead 
planks  in  their  platforms  and  blamed  each  other  for  the 
failure  of  Congress  to  enact  a  homestead  law.*     The  Re- 
publican plank  declared :    "We  are  in  favor  of  granting  the 
public  domain,  in  limited  quantities,  to  be  free  homes  for  free- 
men; 'lands  for  the  landless  venue  niggers  for  the  nigger- 
less';  and  we  hold  the  present  administration  to  a  strict  ac- 
countability for  the  defeat  of  the  Homestead  Bill  in  the 
last    Congress."      Carl   Schurz    an.!   C  i  ujha   Gro»    made 
speeches  in  which  great  emphasis  was  laid  on  the  homestead 
bill.     In  Iowa,  the  same  year,  much  the  same  situation  ex- 
isted."    There  is  no  lack  of  evidence  that  both  parties  in 
the  Northwest  realized  the  importance  of  appropriating  the 
homestead  issue  in  the  approaching  presidential  canvass.^^ 

•The  Democratic  platform  condemned  distribution. 

^  Printed  in  Charlttton  Coutitr,  July  13,  1856. 

*8t.  Paul  Tim»$,  July  21,  Aug.  «,  28  and  SO,  Sept.  6,  11  and  30  and 
Oct.  21,  1859;  Minnttota  SttUttmoM,  March  2,  1859;  Daily  Minnuotian, 
Sept.  9,  10.  15  and  28,  1859. 

•  Weekly  Council  Bluft  Bugle,  Aug.  24  and  Oct.  5,  1859;  Dubuque 
Weekly  Bxprett  and  Herald,  June  29,  1859;  Dodd,  Fiffht  for  Northvett, 
781. 

'*  The  Amerieam  Eagle  (Paoii,  Ind.),  Feb.  9,  1859,  and  Jan.  98,  1860; 


Homeaiead  and  tht  EUction  of  I860 

The  Dubuqu0  (Iowa)  WtgJcly  Egpre$$  and  Herald}^  in 
1859,  declared  that  the  Democratic  Congress  ought  to  enact 
a  homestead  law  because  in  the  approaching  presidential  con- 
test it  would  be  a  powerful  argument  with  the  masses  of  the 
Fople  of  the  Northwest  and  the  industrial  classes  of  aU  the 
old  States  in  favor  of  the  DemocraUc  policj,  and  if  de- 
feated, against  that  policy." 

In  1859,  under  the  direction  of  the  "Congressional  Ex- 
ecutive Committee,''  was  put' shed  a  circular  entitled  ♦•Lands 
for  the  Landless."  »     This  document  brought  before  the 
public  the  importance  of  the  manner  of  disposing  of  the 
public- lands  for  the  people  of  the  old  States  as  well  as  of 
the  new.     "Until  recently,  the  country  was  divided  into 
two  national  parties,"  to  quote,  "both  of  which  were  either 
controlled  or  modified  in  their  action  by  the  Slave  holding 
interest  of  the  South.     From  the  nature  of  the  case,  that 
interest  is  opposej  to  the  pre-emption  laws  and  homestead 
laws,  because  slavery  cannot  exist  at  the  same  time  with 
a  system  of  smaU  freeholds.  .  .  .  Until  the  recent  organi- 
zation of  the  Jeffersonian  Republican  party,  there  was  no 
national  party  which  was  iw  a  condition  to  take  up  this 

Fort  »F«yM  (Ind.)  B^tin,l.  Feb.  94.  1860,  Omoha  N0bratkian.  Julr 
16,  Aug.  87  and  Sept.  24.  1849,  and  Aug.  18.  1860,  Missouri  State  Re- 
pubUcar.  pUtfonn.  Weekly  Illinoie  State  Journal.  March  14.  1860;  SUte 
Rep.  Convention  of  Kentuclcy.  Boeton  Atlas  and  Bee,  May  «.  1860j 
Pennsylvania  RepubUcan  r'*t/onn.  Weekly  Illinoi,  Statt  Journal. 
March  17,  1860,  etc. 

"  Feb.  9,  1849. 

"The  homestead  issue  was  very  important  In  Stete  poUUcs  in  CaU- 
forma  after  1844.  See  Democratic  State  Journal  (Sacramento).  June 
29.  Aug.  7,  8  and  90  and  Sept.  IS.  1844;  March  7.  Aug.  99.  Sept  4  and 
13,  1846;  July  94.  97.  SO,  Aug.  91  and  Sept.  4.  1847,  also  San  Fran- 
cisco Daily  aiobe  and  San  Joaquin  Republican  for  July  and  August, 
loo  7. 

"Printed  in  the  St.  Paul  (Minn.)  Times,  July  0  and  lOv  1849. 


824!       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landt 


II  i 


m 


question,  because  until  the  reorganization  of  this  party 
there  was  none  which  was  not  influenced  or  controlled  by 
an  interest  adverse  to  pre-emption  and  homesteads."  The 
pamphlet  then  analyzes  the  votes  in  Congress  on  the  land 
bills  and  lays  all  the  blame  at  the  door  of  the  Democratic 
party  for  their  defeat.  It  gives  credit  to  Andrew  Johnson 
and  a  few  Southern  representatives  for  supporting  the  bill, 
but  adds  that  "this  proves,  not  that  there  is  any  division 
of  opinion  among  the  oligarchs,  but  that  there  are  portions 
of  the  South  which  the  oligarchs  cannot  fully  control.  It 
is  vain  ...  for  the  Douglases  and  B  rights  "  of  the  West 
to  point  to  their  own  individual  votes  in  favor  of  home 
steads  and  pre-emptions.  If  the  men  of  this  stamp  be  ad- 
mitted to  be  ever  so  sincere  tf.nd  ever  so  reliable  in  those 
respects,  it  is  sufBcient  that  they  are  inextricably  mixed 
up  and  allied  with  a  power  at  the  South  which  is  implacably 
hostile  to  pre-emptions  and  homesteads." 

Mr.  Rhodes "  states  that  the  campaign  of  1852  was 
the  first  one  in  which  special  efforts  were  nade  to  capture 
the  German  and  Irish  vote.  After  that  time  the  number 
of  foreigners,  especially  Germans,  increased  so  rapidly  that 
they  held  the  balance  of  power  in  several  States.  Most 
of  the  German  immigrants  were  fairly  well-to-do  agricul- 
turists, mechanics,  common  laborers,  and  small  tradesmen 
who  came  to  this  country,  not  primarily  because  they  were 
driven  from  their  native  land  from  want  and  oppression,  but 
because  they  wanted  to  better  their  condition.*"  This  class 
naturally  gravitated  to  the  Democratic  party  because  it 
was  the  party  of  Jefferson  and  Jackson  and  because  the 

"  Referring  to  Senator  Jesse  D.  Bright,  of  Indiana. 

^Hiit.  of  U.  8..  I.,  273. 

"New  Yorlt  Abend-Zsitung,  quoted  in  Chicago  Daily  Prei$,  June  9, 
1857;  Schuns,  Bem\niic§ne€i,  IL,  38-45;  PhUadtlphia  Ltdgw,  quoted  in 
DvhuqyM  Htrald,  May  30^  1860. 


Homestead  and  the  Election  of  1860  %%fi 

Whig  party  harbored  the  "nativistic"  element."  There 
were  among  the  Germans  men  who  possessed  the  qualities  of 
leadership  in  an  unusual  degree,  men  of  high  ideals  and 
splendid  patriotism,  who  exercised  a  tremendous  influence, 
not  only  over  their  couafcrymen  but  over  native-born  Ameri- 
cans. As  early  i  s  1844  some  ..f  them  commenced  to  ex- 
press anti-slavery  sentiments  end  in  1848  the  Free  Soil 
candidates  attracts  J  many  Gorman  votes.^*  The  Kansas- 
Nebraska  act  disillusioned  many  German  Democrats  "  and 
from  that  time  many  of  them  turned  their  backs  on  their 
party.  The  New  York  Evening  Express  ^o  stated  that  the 
most  alarming  element  in  the  presidential  campaign  of  1856 
was  the  abandonment  of  the  Democracy  by  the  Germans, 
and  to  some  extent  by  the  Irish,  who  were  going  over  to' 
Fremont. 

However,  many  Germans  were  reluctant  to  join  the  new 
Republican  party.  It  is  true  that  it  was  born  of  the 
hatred  of  slavery,  but  it  also  included  many  who  disliked 
the  increasing  influence  of  foreigners  and  who  were  against 
"personal  liberty."  "   The  fact  is  that  the  Republican  party 

u"lTf.  ^t!  ^""^"  ^'""'**'  "••  ^^^'  ^*'''  S<^»»""'  R'n^inUctnc,,. 
II..  64.  66.  It  may  also  be  pointed  out  that  many  joined  the  Know- 
nothings  because  the  foreigners  were  Democrats.    See  below. 

» Bruncken.  The  Germans  in  Wucomin  PoKtiet,  Parkman  Club  Pa- 
pert,  1896,  pp.  232-234;  Faust.  II..  130. 

"Faust.  II.,  129.  130,  quotes  Von  Hoist  as  saying  that,  according  to 
a  list  drawn  up  by  the  Cincinnati  Gazette,  there  were,  in  1854  eighty 
German  newspapers  against  the  Kansas-Nebraslta  biU  and  only  eight 
in  favor  of  it.  The  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  quoted  by  the  True  Democrat 
(LitUe  Rock,  Ark.),  July  12.  1854.  said  that  eflforts  were  being  made 
to  organuse  the  Germans  into  a  separate  political  organisation  Their 
articles  of  political  faith  were:  1)  abolition  of  slavery;  9)  entire  re- 
ligious freedom;  3)  right  of  every  man  to  a  free  farm;  4)  easier  natu- 
ralMation  laws,  etc.     Netcark  Daily  Advertieer,  March  81,  1854. 

"  Quoted  by  Charheton  Courier,  Aug.  28,  1856. 

"Curtis,  The  Republican  Party,  145  seq.,  216  seq.;  Koemer,  Mtmoin. 


m 


I 


IM 


Pi 


•!  -.. 


i|  i: 
i  I 


226 


TAg  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landt 


was  almost  wrecked  by  the  influx  of  prohibitionists  and 
Know-nothings  into  its  ranks.  These  elements  within  the 
party,  by  their  zeal  in  various  State  legislatures  in  be- 
half of  their  cause,  made  the  name  Republican  synonymous 
with  "nativism"  and  temperance  to  many,  native  Americans 
as  well  as  foreigners,  but  especially  the  Germans.  The  ac- 
tion of  the  Republican  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  where 
the  feeling  against  foreigners  was  very  strong,  in  adopting 
for  submission  to  the  people  an  amendment  to  the  State  con- 
stitution prohibiting  foreign  born  persons  from  voting  until 
two  years  after  naturalization  incensed  Germans  every- 
where, but  especially  in  the  West."  Threats  were  made  to 
punish  the  Republican  party  by  voting  the  Democratic 
ticket. 

The  Sociale  Republik,  published  by  "Der  Arbeiterbund" 
in  New  York,  was  strongly  anti-slavery,  but  cs  late  as 
1858  it  strongly  condemned  the  Republican  party  for  com- 
bining with  the  Know-nothings  and  declared  that  the  time 
had  come  for  German-Americans  to  assert  their  rights.*' 
This  paper  disclaimr  1  all  intention  of  the  Germans  to  nomi- 
nate a  candidate  of  their  own  for  the  presidency,  but  de- 
clared they  would  support  the  man  who  would  come  nearest 
to  espousing  their  cause  which,  among  other  things,  was 
the  enactment  of  a  homestead  law  and  the  prohibition  of 
speculation  in  public  lands.  If  no  candidate  would  look 
19  seq.,  74;  seq.,  Faust,  II.,  130-135;  Grimes  to  Chase,  March  98,  18M. 
Salter,  Orimei,  78,  80;  Rhodes.  II.,  49  seq.;  Desmond,  Th0  Knov>-Notk- 
ing  Party. 

"Schurz,  Beminiicencei,  II.,  116,  117;  Koerner,  Metnoin.  II.,  74-76; 
Sociale  Republik,  April  9,  1859;  Schur«  to  Pierce,  AprU  30,  1859. 
Schurz,  Corretpondence,  I.,  73-75. 

"Sociale  Republik,  Sept.  18,  1858.  This  senUment  permeates  the 
German  papers  and  is  reflected  in  many  "non-German"  papers.  This 
chapter  in  the  history  of  the  RepubUcan  party  has  not  been  sufflclentlT 
emphasized. 


Hojnestead  and  the  Election  of  1860 


ftn 


H-ith  favor  on  their  cause,  then  they  would  withhold  their 
vote8.2*  Gu  ^av  Struve,  the  editor  of  this  militant  paper, 
made  many  speeches  to  laboring  men  and  declared  that 
the  most  important  measure  for  the  laboring  people  was 
the  homestead  law  which  should  also  forbid  all  speculation 
in  the  public  lands.^'  At  a  mass  meeting  of  Germans,  in 
1858,  he  read  certain  resolutions,  which  were  enthusiastically 
adopted,  declaring  that  the  Republican,  Democratic,  and 
Native  American  parties  were  all  corrupt.^o  They  were 
particularly  severe  on  the  Republican  party,  which  they 
declared  claimed  to  be  the  party  of  freedom,  bu*  in  prac- 
tice discriminated   against  immigrants. 

The  Republicans  made  every  effort  to  attract  the  Ger- 
mans to  their  party  by  identifying  the  opposition  to  home- 
stead with  slavery.  In  Minnesota,  in  1859,  they  circulated 
copies  of  Grow's  homestead  bill  printed  in  the  German  lan- 
guage." The  fact  that  the  Republican  bills  were  more 
liberal  to  foreigners  than  the  Senate  Democratic  biUs  was 
made  use  of  in  appealing  to  Germans.** 

The  Democratic  papers  lamented  the  fact  that  the  Re- 
publicans were  truckling  to  the  Germans  and  were  succeed- 
ing in  drawing  them  into  their  fold,*^  but  the  very  fact 
that  their  votes  were  sought  after  made  the  Germans 
independent;    they   demanded   a   price   for   their   support. 

"Ibid.,  July  24,  1858.  In  the  House  Files  for  the  years  1846  to  1852 
a  very  large  proportion  of  the  "NaUonal  Reform"  petitions  (Mss.)  are 
signed  by  Germans. 

"  Ibid.,  Aug.  28,  18W. 

"Ibid.,  Oct.  16.  1858. 

"Minntsota  Stateitnan,  Sept.  3C,  1859. 

"Minnetotian  and  Times,  March  29,  1860;  Daily  Minnetotian.  April 
30  and  May  17,  1859;   Weekly  Chicago  Pre*,  and  Tribune,  April  28, 

^Detroit  Free  Pren,  April  17,  I860;   Weekly  Democrat  and  Newe 
(Davenport,  Iowa),  Jan.  26,  1860, 


i 


I. 'it 


fitr 


228        The  Political  Hittory  of  the  Public  Lands 

They   addressed   open  letters   to  candidates   asking  them 
to     define     their     ^tand     on     naturalizati  homestead, 

etc.'" 

Realizing  the  necessity  of  concerted  action  and  conscious 
of  their  power,  a  body  of  representative  Germans  met  in 
Chicago  before  the  opening  of  the  Republican  national  con- 
vention. Resolutions  were  adopted  requesting  the  conven- 
tion to  condemn  all  measures  hostile  to  adopted  citizens, 
to  declare  in  favor  of  a  homestead  measure  as  passed  by  the 
House,  and  to  adopt  a  positive  anti-slavery  plank.' ^  The 
support  of  such  a  body  of  voters  could  not  be  lightly  brushed 
aside  and  the  Republican  platform  incorporated  these  prin- 
ciples.'^ 

The  homestead  plank  was  a  distinct  asset  to  the  Re 
publicans  in  securing  the  support  of  not  only  the  Germans, 
but  of  other  immigrants.  It  secured  the  invaluable  services 
of  Carl  Schurz,  not  to  mention  the  support  of  German  news- 
papers." A  systematic  campaign  to  reach  the  foreign  vote 
was  inaugurated."  In  July,  1860,  Schurz  wrote  to  his  wife 
from  Illinois  that  the  Grermans  were  coming  to  the  Repub- 
licans by  hundreds  and  thousands.  "If  things  go  every- 
where as  in  Egypt,  where  there  were  scarcely  any  Repub- 
lican votes  cast  in  1856,"  said  he,  "Lincoln's  election  is 

"Edward  Bates  to  Fay  et  al.,  Memphii  Ditily  Enquirer,  March  38, 
1860;  Grimes  to  Hillguertner  et  al.,  AprU  30,  1859.  Salter,  Grimtt.  119, 
120;  Theodore  Canisius  to  Lincoln.  Weekly  Illinoie  State  Jountal 
(Springfield),  Jan.  4,  1860. 

»Bo«<on  Atlat  and  Bee.  May  15  and  16,  1860;  Sociale  BeiMU>tik. 
March  12,  1860. 

"Schurz,  Reminiecencet,  II.,  179  seq. 

-niinou  State  Regigter,  quoted  by  the  Memfhu  DaUy  Appeal,  July 
17,  1860,  gave  a  list  of  sixty-nine  German  papers  in  the  country  sup- 
porting Lincoln. 

•♦Schurs  to  Lincoln,  May  22,  1860.  Schurz,  Correepondence,  L,  116- 
118;  Schurs,  Beminiireneet,  II.,  197. 


Homestead  and  the  Election  of  1860  229 

inevitable.""  From  Philadelphia  he  wrote:  "The  old 
'Pennsylvania  Dutch'  follow  me  like  little  children,  although 
thej  can  only  half  understand  me.  The  Democrats  are  furi- 
ous, and  wherever  I  have  spoken  they  telegraph  like  mad 
in  all  directions  for  German  speakers  to  neutralize  the  ef- 
fect of  my  speeches."  3«  In  some  places  entire  German 
Democratic  clubs  went  over  to  the  Republicans,  ^t 

The  nomination  of  Lincoln  was  brought  about  by  the 
conservative  wing  of  the  party,  and  was  an  attempt  to  se- 
cure the  support  of  the  Northwest.  Likewise  the  homestead 
plank  was  an  appeal  for  the  support  of  this  section.  But 
homestead  was  popular  not  only  in  the  Northwest  but  also 
among  laborers  and  farmers  in  the  East  as  well.  Grow's 
speech  on  '"Land  for  the  Landless"  was  scattered  broadcast 
all  oyer  the  country  »8  and  voters  pried  into  the  records  of 
candidates  for  Congress  on  the  homestead  bill.'* 

At  the  Lincoln  and  Hamlin  ratification  meeting  at  Spring- 
field, Illinois,  banners  were  carried,  inscribed  "Old  Abe 

one  of  Hammond's  mud  siUs";  "Free  Homes  for  the  Home- 
less"; "Abraham  Lincoln— in  favor  of  the  Homestead 
Bill."  *«  At  a  later  meeting  in  the  same  town  a  banner  was 
carried  proclaiming  "Pass  the  Homestead  Bill,  and  that 
Will  settle  the  Slavery  Question";  "The  Small  Giant  dodges 

"  Schun,  Corrupondtnc;  I,  121. 

"Schun  to  wife.    Sept.  24,  1860.    Ibid.,  U  160,  161. 

''Chicago  Pre,,  and  Tribun,,  quoted  in  W„lly  Illinoi,  State  Journal, 
Sept.  12,  1860;  Botton  Atku  and  Bee  for  July  and  August,  1860.  Be- 
fore the  RepubUcan  convention  the  Irish  at  Menasha,  Wis.,  went  over 
to  the  Republicans,  giving  as  their  reason  the  failure  of  the  Demo- 
crats to  support  the  homestead  bill    Minnetotian  and  Time,,  April  20, 

-McMaster.  VIII.,  461,  Greeley  and  Cleveland.  PolUical  Text-book, 
182-19S;  Weekly  IWnoi,  State  Journal.  April  IS,  1860. 
"iV.  r.  Dailif  Tribune,  Aug.  25,  1860. 
•  Weekly  IlUnoi,  State  Journal,  June  13,  1860. 


230        The  Political  Hi$tory  of  the  PubUc  Land» 


I'* 


-i; 


the  Homestead  Bill."  "  Republican  campaign  orators  and 
papers  claimed  that  their  party  was  the  only  one  which 
was  a  true  friend  of  homestead  and  that  no  matter  if  indi- 
vidual Democratic  candidates  declared  their  friendliness  to 
the  measure,  their  party's  record  gave  no  hope  for  the 
future.** 

In  the  East  men  like  John  Sherman,  Lyman  Trumbull, 
and  Anson  Burlingame  made  much  of  the  homestead  issue! 
At  a  Republican  meeting  in  Lynn,  Massachusetts,  Anson 
Burlingame  was  introduced  "as  one,  the  music  of  whose 
voice,  in  the  defense  of  freedom,  free  labor,  and  free  home- 
steads, had  made  melodious  the  hills  and  valleys  of  our 
land."  *3  In  a  great  procession  in  Boston  there  was  a  house 
placed  on  wheels,  drawn  by  four  horses,  and  upon  each  side 
was  inscribed  "Free  Homesteads.""  Delegations  from 
Middlesex  and  Essex  counties  had  transparencies  proclaim- 
ing "Free  Homesteads  and  Free  Men." 

Buchanan's  veto  of  the  homestead  bill,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  extremely  unpopular  in  the  newer  portions  of  the  North- 
"  Weekly  IllinoU  State  Journal,  Aug.  15,  1860. 

-From  a  mass  of  material  on  the  campaign  in  the  Northwest  the 
foUowmg  may  be  cited:  St.  Paul  Daily  Timee,  July  3.  Aug.  11  and  14, 
Sept.  4  and  5  and  Oct.  31,  1860;  Weekly  Illinois  State  Journal,  April  18. 
June  20,  July  4,  Sept.  5  and  Oct.  31,  1860,  Galena  (Ills.)  Advertiier 
quoted  in  Botton  Daily  Atlas  and  Bee,  July  12,  1860. 
** Boston  Atlas  and  Bee,  July  28,  1860. 

"/6W.,  Oct.  17,  1860.  See  also  Ibid.,  July  11  and  21.  Oct  24.  26  and 
99  and  Nov.  6,  7  and  10,  1860,  Philadelphia  North  American  and  U  S 
Gazette,  May  28.  June  11  and  Sept.  13,  1860.  At  a  meeting  in  Phila- 
delphia Lyman  Trumbull  said:  "Why  should  the  public  lands  in  my 
State,  and  Iowa,  and  Minnesota,  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  be  brought 
mto  the  market  and  sold  to  capitalists.  Uving  here  upon  Chestnut  Street, 
or  upon  Fifth  Avenue  in  the  City  of  New  York?  Why  should  we  en- 
courage capitalists  to  buy  those  lands,  and  hold  them  for  five  or  ten 
years,  so  that  when  you  or  your  chUdren  go  out  there  to  settle,  you 
wdl  be  obliged  to  pay  five  or  ten  dollars  an  acre  for  the  land?"  Ibid. 
May  28,  1860.  ' 


III 


Homettead  and  the  Election  of  1860  JWl 

west.     The  West  had  not  recovered  from  the  panic  of  1867 
and  in  the  new  settlements  the  pioneers  had  no  monej  with 
which   to   pay   for  their  pre-emption   claims."     Many  in 
the  West  blamed  the  land  system  for  the  "hard  times."    "It 
is  a  fact  just  beginning  to  be  realized  by  the  people  of  this 
country,"  according  to  a  letter  from  Iowa  to  the  New  York 
World,*^  "that  the  primary  cause  of  the  great  comnieTcial 
depression  thai  now  sits  like  a  nightmare  on  the  pulseless 
cities  and  idle  fields  of  the  Northwest,  is  the  pernicious  pol- 
icy of  the  General  Government,  with  regard  to  the  public 
lands.  ...  The  people  of  the  West  have  been  deeply  morti- 
fied by  the  failure  of  Congress  to  pass  a  proper  Homestead 
Law.    The  question  will  enter  largely  into  the  political  can- 
vass, and   will  determine  many  votes   against   the  Demo- 
cratic party."    Times  were  particularly  "hard"  in  Minne- 
sota.    In  this  new  State  there  were  thousands  of  settlers 
living  on  the  public  lands  who  were  absolutely  unable  to 
pay  for  their  claims.     To  make  matters  worse.  President 
Buchanan  by  proclamation  opened  the  lands  to  public  sale. 
Immediately  the  cry  was  set  up  that  the  administration,  con- 
trolled by  Southern  politicians,  was  deliberately  trying  to 
injure  the  Northwest.     Republican  papers  made  political 
capital  out  of  it  and  called  upon  the  people  of  Minnesota 
to  punish  the  administration  and  the  Democratic  party  in 
the  coming  election.^     So  strong  wa*.  uie  feeUng  that  the 

•  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Oflke,  Nov  SO 
1859.  Senate  Document,,  36  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Vol.  I.,  193,  Reports  ot  the' 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Dec.  1,  1859  and  Nov.  SO,  1860.  Ibid..  U  93. 
94;  Ibid.,  36  Cong.,  3  Sess.,  I.,  30.  »    •»    -» 

-Quoted  In  Weekly  IllinoU  State  Journal.  July  25,  1860,  which  en- 
dorsed the  sentiment.    See  also  N.  Y.  Daily  Tribune,  June  25,  1860. 

The  St.  Peter  Tribune  (July  «5.  1860)  said:  "If  any  thing  were 
needed  to  complete  the  infamy  of  the  Old  Public  Functionary  [Bu- 
chanan], this  last  act  is  sufScieot"  '    * 


SS2 


The  Political  Hittory  of  the  Public  Landa 


■■■^ 

i 


Democratic  congressmen  from  the  State  petitioned  Buchan- 
an, and  Governor  Sibley  made  a  special  trip  to  Washington 
to  induce  him  to  postpone  the  sales.  The  President  yielded 
to  political  necessity  and  complied  with  the  request." 

In  Nebraska  Territory  the  circumstances  were  much  ti  e 
same  as  in  iMinncsota  and  when  the  land  sales  were  pro- 
claimed there,  the  Republicans  took  the  same  course  as  they 
had  taken  in  Minnesota.  Crow's  bill  reserving  the  public 
lands  for  actual  settlers  for  ten  years  was  held  up  in  con- 
trast with  the  administration  policy.  The  Democrats  suc- 
ceeded in  having  the  sales  postponed,  but  the  Democratic 
party  had  received  much  unpleasant  advertising  in  the 
Northwest." 

The  situation  which  confronted  the  Democratic  party 
at  the  assembling  of  the  Charleston  convention  was  the  most 
difficult  imaginable.  Tom  by  strife  within  and  without 
C  ongress,  with  a  number  of  able  and  ambitious  men  aspir- 
ing to  leadership,  to  infuse  harmony  was  an  almost  super- 
human task.  Nevertheless  the  situation  was  not  hopeless. 
The  Democratic  party  had  little  to  fear  from  the  remnants 
of  the  Whig  and  Know-nothing  parties,  and  the  Repub- 
lican party  had  less  influence  in  the  South  than  it  has 
to-day.  The  obvious  task  of  the  Charleston  convention  was 
to  construct  a  platform  sufficiently  aggressive  to  appease 
the  "fire-eaters,"  yet  mild  enough  to  be  acceptable  to  the 
conservative  element  and  to  nominate  a  candidate  who  could 
consistently  stand  on  it.     With  success  assured  in  every 

"The  Minnesota  papers  during  1859  and  1860  made  much  of  this  See 
especially:  at.  Paul  Time,,  March  1  and  25.  Aug.  U  and  M  and  Sept 
3  and  7,  1859;  Daily  Minneiotian,  Aug.  17  and  Sq)t.  9  and  14,  1859; 
Minnetota  Statetman,  Feb.  2,  1859. 

*Nebra,ka  Adr,erti,tr,  Feb.  18.  1858;  Omaha  Nebratkan.  May  19  and 
Sept.  8.  1858:  Nebra,ka  City  N«v»,  Sept  39,  1860;  Nashville  Umon  and 
Jmerican,  Aug.  29,  1858. 


Homestead  and  the  Election  of  1860  XaS 

slave  State  and  an  equal  chance  in  several  free  States,  if  the 
counsel  of  cooler  heads  in  the  South,  like  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  had  prevailed,  the  Democrats  might  have  remained 
in  power  for  another  four  years. 

The  Harpers  Ferrj  raid  had  awakened  hostility  to  any 
candidate  from  the  free  States,  but  less  radical  Southerners 
saw  that  the  hopes  for  a  Democratic  victory  rested  upon 
their  ability  to  carry  the  Northwest.    They  saw  the  futility 
of  staking  their  cause  on  sectional  issues  because  the  opposi- 
tion party  was  sectional  and  in  a  purely  sectional  fight  could 
be  expected  to  carry  the  stronger  section.'"     For  this  rea- 
son they  deplored  the  Southern  opposition  to  homestead 
which  was  sure  to  alienate  the  Northwest  and  give  the  Re- 
publican party  a  monopoly  of  the  homestead  issue.    Andrew 
Johnson,  whose  untiring  efforts  in  behalf  of  a  homestead  law 
had  made  his  name  well  known  among  the  many  voters  in  the 
East  and  especially  in  the  Northwest,  was  groomed  by  cer- 
tain leaders  in  the  South,  hut  especially  in  Tennessee  and 
Kentucky,  for  the  Democratic  nomination.     There  was  a 
very  considerable  element  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  but 
especially  in  the  Northwest,  which  heartily  wished  for  John- 
son's nomination."     "It  is  the  opinion  of  a  distinguished 
Northern  Democrat,  who  is  cool  and  calculating  in  his  lan- 
guage," wrote  the  editor  of  the  NashviOe  Union  and  Amer- 

"NathvaU  Union  and  AmeHean.  Nov.  13  and  Dec,  15,  1859;  March 
30  and  AprU  4,  I860;  Chattanooga  Adt>tHi$tr.  quoted  in  Ibid.,  Sept  S5 
/6w'  S?"  ^^"^^  "'  ^^'  <^^<'»'*»ooga  Boi»th,m  Btfltetor.  quoted  in 

"See  files  of  tlie  NathvilU  Union  and  American  for  Nov.  and  Dec, 
1859,  and  Jan..  Feb,  March  and  April,  1860.  for  communications  and 
extracts  from  other  papers  relative  to  Johnson.  Also  MtmphU  Daily 
Avalancht  about  this  tfane.  Tlu  Stattt  and  Union  (Wash,  D.  C),  Feb 
18  and  June  20.  1860.  There  are  evidences  that  Johnson  was  popular 
Z  ^^^.^"r*'  "  ""y  "  ^^^-     ^"^  ^*'  ^«'y  «7«fcm  (Wad.ington), 

Mij  as,  185a.  o     /» 


ii. 


I  4.1 


SS4        TA«  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landi 

icon'*  from  Washington  in  April,  1860,  "that  anj  opponent 
of  the  Homestead  policy  would  lose  200,000  votes  in  New 
York,  100,000  in  Pennsjlvania,  and  he  couldn't  touch  bot- 
tom in  the  Northwest." 

It  is  perhaps  easy  to  make  too  much  of  Johnson's  popu- 
larity since  it  is  natural  that  the  Tennessee  newspapers 
should  have  inflated  the  boom  for  a  "favorite  son."  "  In 
a  direct  primary  he  might  have  shown  surprising  strength 
but  with  the  Southern  politicians  he  was  a  most  unwelcome 
candidate.  There  was  nothing  in  his  record  in  Congress 
which  was  hostile  to  the  "constitutional"  rights  of  the  South 
with  the  exception  of  his  advocacy  of  the  homestead  bill. 
However,  this  in  itself  was  sufRcient  to  class  him  with  Seward 
and  other  advocates  of  the  "Black  Republican  measure  for 
Freedom." 

Unfortunately  for  Douglas,  he  was  strongest  where  the 
Democratic  party  was  weakest  and  the  weakest  man  in 
the  party  where  it  was  strongest.'*  For  this  reason  there 
was  small  chance  of  his  securing  the  nomination  of  a  united 
Democratic  party.  The  Charletton  Mercury,^^  a  few  days 
before  the  assembling  of  the  Charleston  convention,  declared 

-April  5,  1860. 

"Greelqr's  letter  written  from  Davenport,  Iowa,  Jan.  S9,  1860,  is  sig- 
nificant. "No  other  Democratic  statesman  than  Douglas,  unless  it  be 
Andrew  Johnson,  of  Tenn.,  could  hope  for  their  [Western  settlers]  sup- 
port. .  .  .  Mr.  Douglas,  on  this  question  [homestead],  could  probably 
hold  his  own  against  a  Republican;  no  one  else  but  Johnson  could  begin 
to  do  it."    Dubuqu*  Herald,  Sept  96,  1860. 

•*See  C'Memnati  Commercial,  quoted  in  The  MUiiirippian,  March  IS, 
1860.  C  C.  Clay,  Jr.,  to  E.  A.  O'Neal,  May  81,  1860.  Tri-Weekly 
Charletton  Mercury,  June  S,  1860.  Clay  says  DougUs  has  been  a  con- 
stant supporter  of  the  free  farm  or  homestead  policy,  having  voted  for 
it  in  company  with  but  one  other  Northern  Democrat  and  all  the  Black 
Republicans  against  all  the  Southern  senators,  etc.  There  is  consid- 
erable evidence  that  the  Southern  Democrats  did  not  like  Douglas's  stand 
for  homestead.  "  Tri-Weekly,  AprU  17,  18«a 


Homeatead  and  the  Election  of  1860 


U5 


th»t  "the  Democratic  party,  a*  a  party,  baaed  upon  prin- 
ciples, is  dead.  It  exists  now,  only  as  a  powerful  faction. 
It  has  not  one  single  principle  common  to  its  members 
North  and  South."  This  same  paper  during  the  campaign 
branded  Douglas  as  a  "Homestead  Squatterite." "  The 
Knoxville  (Tenn.)  Register,"  a  radical  sheet,  in  comment- 
ing on  the  differences  between  the  Northern  and  Southern 
Democracy,  declared  that  the  former  were  for  giving  the 
public  lands  to  "soulless  corporations,  or  what  is  infinitely 
worse,  dividing  them  into  Home  Steads  for  Abolition  Squat- 
ter Sovereigns." 

Although,  of  course,  there  were  Breckinridge  supporters 
in  the  free  States,  his  chances  in  New  England  and  the 
Northwest  were  almost  negligible.  The  Douglas  wing,  how- 
ever, made  its  appeal  for  votes  in  the  South  as  well  as  in 
the  North.  For  this  reason  they  were  on  the  defensive  on 
the  homestead  issue.  The  Republicans  could  afford  to  in- 
corporate a  purely  sectional  proposition  in  their  platform 
because  they  expected  no  support  in  the  South.  The  Doug- 
las speakers  and  newspapers  were  constantly  embarrassed 
by  Republican  queries  as  to  why  their  platform  was  silent 
on  homestead.  Douglas's  record  on  the  several  bills  was 
vigorously  and  frequently  unjustly  attacked  and,  of  course, 
much  capital  was  made  of  the  record  of  the  Democratic 
Senate  and  Buchanan's  veto.'*     The  Democratic  defense  was 


"Tri-Weekly,  Sept.  8,  1860. 

"Quoted  by  BejM^liean  Banner  and  NaihvUle  Whig,  Feb.  29,  1860. 

"  There  is  a  great  mass  of  material  on  this  point,  but  only  a  few  refer- 
ences are  cited:  Oregon  Weekly  Timee.  June  9,  1860;  Nebraska  CUy 
News,  Sept.  15,  I860;  Dnbuqve  Herald.  Aug.  15  and  29,  1860;  8t.  Paul 
Timee,  July  SI,  Aug.  28,  Sept  7  and  27  and  Oct.  9, 1860;  Weeklif  Illinoie 
State  Register,  Aug.  i&,  1860;  Weekly  Democrat  and  Newe  (Daven- 
port, Iowa),  Sept  27,  I860;  Detroit  Fret  Pre**,  July  23  and  Aug.  17, 
1860;  Daily  Ohio  Statesman,  Oct.  2,  1860. 


iSe        The  Political  Hiatory  of  the  Public  Land$ 


i 


ii» 


that  the  record  of  Douglas  and  his  followers  was  so  well 
known  that  a  formal  plank  was  deemed  unnecessary.  Gree- 
ley's letter,  written  in  January,  1860,  in  which  Douglas's 
homestead  record  was  praised,  was  cited  as  proof."' 

The  only  vulnerable  joint  in  the  Republican  armor  was 
the  record  of  the  candidate  for  the  vice-presidency,  Han- 
nibal Hamlin.  Up  to  1854  he  had  been  an  out-spoken  op- 
ponent of  the  homestead  bill  and  the  Democrats  in  the  West 
made  much  of  this  in  order  to  show  that  their  opponents 
were  insincere  in  their  devotion  to  the  measure.**" 

The  homestead  policy  occupied  a  prominent  place  in 
Douglas's  speeches  in  the  West."^  At  Dubuque,  Iowa,  in 
October,  he  spoke  as  follows :  •'  *'I  have  often  had  occasion 
to  say  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  now  repeat 
it  to  you,  that  if  I  had  my  way,  there  would  never  be  an- 
other public  land  sale  on  the  American  Continent.  [Tre- 
mendous applause]  I  would  apply  the  pre-emption  system 
and  Homestead  Bill  to  all  our  public  lands,  and  I  would 
allow  the  title  to  remain,  in  the  Federal  Government  until 
some  actual  settler  would  avail  himself  of  the  pre-emption 
and  Homestead  bill.  [Cries,  "that's  right,"  and  applause] 
I  originated  the  idea  of  a  Homestead  Bill  when  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  sixteen  or  seventeen  years 
ago.  ...  I  have  urged  in  the  Senate  over  and  over  again 

''DubuqH0  Btrald,  Sept.  96,  1860;  Wttkly  Detnoerat  and  Nnu 
(Davenport,  Iowa),  Sept.  97,  1860. 

**A  few  typical  references  are  cited:  Weekly  Illinoi*  State  Journal, 
July  II,  1860;  Weekly  CouncU  BUift  Bugle,  Aug.  39  and  Sept.  19, 
I860;  Dubuque  Herald,  Sept.  96,  I860;  Detroit  Free  Preee,  Aug.  4  and 
Sept.  II,  1860;  Ohio  Stateetnan,  June  90,  I860;  Nebraika  City  NevBi, 
Sq>t.  15  and  99,  I860;  Omaha  Nebraekan,  Sept.  99,  1860;  Kansae  No- 
tional Democrat,  June  98,  1860. 

"i>it6«9u«  Herald,  Sept.  5,  1860;  DetroU  Free  Preee,  Oct  16  and  19, 
1860. 

"Dti&KgiM  Herald,  Oct  17,  186a 


Homestead  and  iht  Election  of  1860 


Ul 


the  indispensable  necessity  of  confining  t!  <  public  lands  to 
the  actual  settler,  and  allowing  no  speculator  to  get  posses- 
sion except  for  cultivation.  [Cries  of  "good!"  and  ap- 
plause] My  policy  has  always  been  to  make  every  inhabi- 
tant of  the  new  States  and  Territories  a  land-holder,  as 
far  as  it  was  possible  to  do  so,  by  our  legislation.  [A  voice, 
"that's  right!"]  After  extending  these  privileges  to  the 
settlers,  my  next  step  was  to  confer  upon  the  settlers  of  a 
Territory  all  the  rights  of  self-government  possessed  by  the 
(Miople  of  the  States.     [  Applause.  ]  " 

Douglas  used  the  homestead  argument  to  attract  the 
alien  voters,  realizing  that  on  the  slavery  issue  he  could 
not  expect  to  compete  with  the  Republicans. 

Neither  Republicans  nor  Democrats  had  much  to  fear 
from  the  Bell-Everett  ticket  in  the  West.  In  the  South, 
however,  it  carried  some  States  and  made  a  strong  fight  in 
others.  The  Bell-Everett  papers  in  this  section  made  good 
use  of  the  homestead  issue  by  denouncing  Breckinridge's 
running-mate,  Joseph  Lane,  as  an  advocate  of  that  "de- 
testable and  damnable  Homestead  Bill,  the  most  comprehen- 
sive and  infamous  abolition  measure  that  has  ever  been  pro- 
posed since  the  foundation  of  the  government."  "  The  can- 
didates on  the  "Suicide  Ticket"  were  named  "Squatter 
Breckinridge  and  Homestead  Joseph"  by  the  Augusta 
(Georgia)  DaUy  Chronicle  and  Sentinel.** 

The  adoption  of  the  homestead  plank  by  the  Republican 
national  convention  was  a  stroke  of  policy.  It  was  re- 
garded by  the  Germans  as  a  guarantee  of  good  faith  by  a 

"Richmond  Whig  (BeU-Everett),  quoted  by  Floridian  and  Journal 
(Breckinridge).  Aug.  8,  1800. 

**Jul7  15,  I860.  See  also  Fhri^an  and  Journal,  for  August  and 
September.  1860,  which  contains  extracts  from  other  papers,  and  Doily 
ChronicU  and  80ntin$l  (Augusta,  Ga.),  March  35  and  SO  and  June  33, 
1860;  Baltimore  Clipper,  May  19,  1860. 


p,  ') 


298        The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landa 


|i!'». 


party  whose  record  on  prohibition  and  nativism  was  ex- 
tremely repulsive.  It  was  also  an  announcement  that  the 
Republican  votes  for  homestead  bills  in  Congress  had  been 
sincere.  The  importance  of  the  homestead  issue  as  a  "vote 
getter"  is  evidenced  by  the  prominence  which  was  given  to  it 
by  Republican  speakers  and  newspapers  and  by  the  efforts 
of  the  Douglas  party  in  the  West  to  claim  it.  Were  it  not 
for  the  weight  of  documentary  evidence  one  would  hesitate 
to  challenge  the  idealism  of  the  American  people  by  indors- 
ing the  words  of  Lovejoy,  the  brother  of  the  martyr,  when 
the  homestead  bill  was  in  danger  of  defeat,  that  without 
being  pledged  to  sujh  a  measure  the  Republicans  could  not 
have  elected  their  President.'"  It  is,  of  course,  true  that 
the  historian  is  on  dangerous  ground  when  he  attempts  to 
base  his  evidence  upon  newspaper  sources.  However,  in  a 
political  campaign  it  is  sometimes  more  important  to  find 
out  what  the  people  were  made  to  think  rather  than  what 
the  facts  really  were.  We  have  the  authority  of  Mr.  Rhodes 
for  the  statement  that  during  the  years  between  1854  and 
1860  the  daily  journals  were  a  pretty  good  reflection  of 
public  sentiment  in  the  United  States.'"  According  to  this 
writer,  public  opinion  generally  acts  more  quickly  through 
the  press  than  through  public  meetings.®^  "I  can  emphat- 
ically say,"  he  writes,  "that  if  you  want  to  penetrate  into 
the  thoughts,  feelings,  and  ground  of  decision  of  the  1,- 
866,000  men  who  voted  for  Lincoln  in  1860,  you  should 
study  with  care  the  New  York  Weekly  Tribune."  ^^  Ac- 
cepting the  opinion  of  this  distinguished  student  of  Amer- 
ican politics  during  the  period  of  the  slavery  controversy. 


*  Dec.  10,  1861.    Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.,  9  SeM.,  39. 
"  HiHorical  Etfay$,  31. 
"HUtory  of  th«  V.  8.,  I.,  465. 
"Hiitorical  Euay$,  91. 


Homestead  and  the  Election  of  1860 


M9 


it  is  impossible  to  escape  the  conclusion  that  the  homestead 
issue  was  vital.  The  task  of  noting  the  references  to  the 
public  lands,  and  the  homestead  bill  in  particular,  in  the 
newspapers  is  almost  superhuman,  but  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  in  those  days  as  well  as  to-daj  the  press  sup- 
pressed and  colored  news  when  it  was  to  the  interest  of  the 
party  to  do  so.  The  obviousness  of  the  slavery  issue  has 
dimmed  the  other  problems  confronting  the  American  peo- 
ple, but  they  were  there  nevertheless  and  the  question  of 
land  in  its  various  forms  has  ever  been  &  vital  one  in  all 
times  and  conditions  of  men.  Directly  and  indirectly  the 
public  domain  solved  the  slavery  problem;  it  broke  the 
backbone  of  the  Democratic  party  by  making  possible  a 
great  section  peopled  by  men  and  women  steeped  in  the 
ideals  of  freedom  and  personal  liberty  and  it  gave  birth 
to  an  issue  which  in  the  hour  of  greatest  need  turned  thou- 
sands to  the  embodiment  of  the  American  spirit,  Abraham 
Lincoln,  himself  the  product  of  the  frontier. 


CHAPTER  XV 


THE   HOMESTEAD   LAW,   1862 


II 

I 


IT  was  not  to  be  expected  that  a  sectional  measure  of  the 
importance  of  homestead  would  be  enacted  into  law  in  the 
short  session  of  Congress  which  convened  immediately  after 
the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  but  there  was  no  reason 
why  a  party  which  had  appealed  to  the  voters  on  the  ground 
of  its  friendship  to  the  measure  should  have  delayed  its 
enactment  after  the  withdrawal  of  the  Southern  members 
had  left  it  virtually  supreme  in  Congress.  Of  course,  the 
war  gave  birth  to  problems  connected  with  the  administra- 
tion of  the  public  domain  which  could  not  be  foreseen.  East- 
ern Republicans  who  had  been  warm  supporters  of  home- 
stead now  claimed  that  the  financial  exigencies  of  the  gov- 
ernment demanded  that  the  public  lands  should  be  reserved 
as  a  basis  of  credit,*  forgetting  that  while  the  South  was  op- 
posing it  on  similar  grounds  they  insisted  that  by  improving 
and  cultivating  the  lands  the  government  would  derive  a 
greater  revenue.'*  Grow,  who  was  always  consistent  on  the 
question,  stood  with  the  West  in  opposition  to  the  East. 
"The  standard  of  credit  with  a  nation  is  not  the  amount  of 
unproductive  property  that  it  may  possess,"  said  he,  "but 
the  ability  of  its  people  to  pay  taxes.  Its  real  wealth  con- 
sists not  in  the  sums  of  money  paid  into  its  treasury,  but 
in  its  flocks,  its  herds,  and  cultivated  fields,  and,  above  all, 


»S<.  Peter  Tribune,  March  «,  1862. 

■  Cong.  Globe,  37  Cong.,  9  Scss.,  136-140. 

240 


1> :      ■< '" 
hi 


The  Homeitead  Law,  1862 


241 


in  the  comfort  of  its  laboring  classes;  not  in  the  mass  of 
its  wealth,  but  in  its  diffusion.  .  .  .  Whatever  changes  this 
rebellion  may  produce  in  the  industrial  pursuits  of  the  coun- 
try, it  must  certainly  revolutionize  its  revenue  policy ;  for  it 
will  be  impossible  to  raise  the  necessary  revenue  for  its  cur- 
rent expenses  and  provide  for  the  national  debt  by  duties 
on  imports  alone.  Hence  must  come  a  resort  to  internal 
taxation;  and  the  amount  of  taxes  thus  collected  will  de- 
pend, in  &  great  degree,  on  the  ability  of  the  people  to  con- 
sume the  products  taxed.  The  greater  the  ability  to  con- 
sume the  greater  the  consumption,  and  the  greater  the  con- 
sumption the  greater,  of  course,  must  be  the  production, 
and,  consequently,  the  greater  the  revenue  on  it."  " 

Naturally  the  war  awakened  a  new  interest  in  land  boun- 
ties to  soldiers  and  there  was  much  apprehension  lest  home- 
stead would  be  overslaughed  by  a  wholesale  issue  of  boun- 
ties.* During  a  time  of  war  there  is  always  a  tendency 
to  shower  favors  upou  soldiers,  and,  of  course,  the  dealers 
in  land  warrants  put  forth  their  best  efforts.  It  was  argued 
that  if  a  homestead  law  went  into  effect  at  once  it  would 
give  those  persons  who  declined  to  go  into  the  army  an  un- 
due advantage  over  those  who  entered  the  service.'  Western 
representatives  admitted  that  persons  who  were  not  soldiers 
might  take  up  lands  under  a  homestead  law,  but  they  pointed 
out  that  soldiers  were  not  denied  the  benefit  of  it  and  in 
addition  received  money  bounties  under  the  law  of  July 
22,  1861." 

*  Feb.  91,  1869.    Ibid.,  910. 

*J.  K.  Ingalls  to  Andrew  Johnson,  July  10,  IMO.  Joknaon  Paptn. 
Mss.  Ct.  H<MU«  Journal.  37  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  43,  Report  of  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  Nov.  SO,  1861.  StnaU  Doewmentt,  37  Cong.,  9  Sess., 
Vol.  I.,  443-445. 

•Collar.  Olobt,  37  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  134. 

'Ibid.,  136.  1039-1034. 


fft 

-  •  y 


P 


itii 


ii42        TA<;  PoItftcaZ  History  of  the  Public  Landt 

The  greatest  opposition  to  the  homestead  bill,  as  mif^t 
be  expected,  came  from  the  border  States.'^  In  spite  of 
the  opposition  of  those  who  favored  bounties  and  desired 
to  pledge  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  to  the  pay- 
ment of  the  national  debt,^  the  homestead  bill  passed 
the  House  on  February  28,  186«,  by  a  vote  of  106  to  18, 
the  negatives  coming  almost  entirely  from  the  border 
States." 

The  bill  did  not  meet  with  much  opposition  in  the  Sen- 
ate. Senator  Harlan,  of  Iowa,  in  December,  1861,  had 
introduced  a  homestead  bill,^"  but  when  the  House  bill 
reached  that  chamber,  on  behalf  of  the  committee  on 
public  lands,  he  asked  that  that  committee  be  discharged 
from  the  consideration  of  his  bill.^*  The  Senate  having 
agreed  to  this,  Harlan  reported  back  the  House  bill  with 
amendments  excluding  rebels  from  its  benefits,  striking  out 
the  provision  giving  money  bounties  to  soldiers,  and  adding 
a  clause  forbidding  one  person  to  enter  more  than  160 
acres.^'^  These  amendments  were  agreed  to  by  the  Senate. 
Here,  too,  the  land  bounty  question  was  brought  up  by 
Carlile,  of  Virginia,  who  offered  a  land  bounty  bill  as  a 
substitute  for  homestead.^  °  The  substitute  received  but 
eleven  votes,  they  being  "lostly  from  the  border  states.** 
May  6th  the  bill  passed  the  Senate  33  to  7,  the  negatives 

^See  vote  on  homestead  bill  in  the  House,  Feb.  S8,  1869.  HouM 
Journal,  37  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  376,  377.  See  also  Go%g.  Olobt,  37  Cong., 
9  Sess.,  1915,  1916,  1937-1940. 

'Ibid.,  889,  890. 

*Hou$e  Journal,  37  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  376,  377. 

"  Dec.  9,  1861.    Cong.  Qlobt,  37  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  96. 

"March  95.  1869.    Ibid.,  1347. 

>*May  9,  1869.    Ibid.,  1915. 

"May  9.  Ibid.,  1915,  1916.  See  speech  of  Pomerojr,  of  Kansas,  in 
opposition.    May  5.    Ibid.,  1937-1940. 

"May  6.    Ibid.,  1951.    There  were  98  negative  votes. 


The  Homestead  Law,  1862 


248 


coining  from  the  border  States." 

The  House  refused  to  accept  the  Senate  amendments  and 
asked  for  a  committee  of  conference."  In  the  main  the 
Senate  amendments  were  adopted  by  the  House  committee 
and  both  houses  concurred  in  the  amendments.*'  It  was 
fitting  and  proper  that  a  bill  which  meant  so  much  to  Amer- 
ican society  should  have  received  the  signature  of  a  Presi- 
dent who  "admirably  represented  that  which  was  best  in 
American  life.** 

The  law  ^'  provided  that  the  head  of  a  family,  or  a  per- 
son twenty-one  years  of  age  or  over,  being  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  or  having  filed  his  declaration  of  intention, 
and  who  had  never  borne  arms  against  the  United  States, 
should  U<?  entitled  to  enter  not  more  than  160  acres,  or  a 
less  quantity  of  unappropriated  public  domain,  on  which 
he  may  have  fUed  a  pre-emption  claim,  or  which  at  the  time 
of  application  was  subject  to  pre-emption  at  $1.85  or  less 
per  acre,  or  80  acres  at  $«.60.  He  must  swear  that  the  land 
was  for  actual  settlement  and  cultivation  and  not  directly 
or  indirectly  for  the  benefit  of  any  other  person.  Upon 
filing  affidavit  he  must  pay  $10.  No  patent  could  be  is- 
sued before  6  years.  No  land  acquired  under  the  act  should 
be  liable  for  the  satisfaction  of  any  debt  contracted  prior 
to  the  issuing  of  the  patent.  If  the  settler  abandoned  his 
claim  for  more  than  six  months  at  any  time,  it  reverted  to 
the  government.  A  person  who  had  served  in  the  army  or 
navy  of  the  United  States  for  not  less  than  14  days  could 
take  advantage  of  the  bill,  even  though  under  21  years  of 
age.     The  act  did  not  interfere  with  the  pre-emption  act 

•IMd.,  1951. 

**t>ec.  li.    Ibid.,  9061,  9069. 

"May  1«,  1869.    Ihid.,  9147,  9148,  9158. 

>*M«y  90^  1860.    Btot^On  at  Larpt,  XII.,  S99. 


rii 


IP  I 


It. » 


i 


)i.. 


:i 


844       T^  PoUticdl  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

(Sept.  4,  1841),  and  land  entered  under  the  homestead  act 
might  be  paid  for  at  any  time  at  the  minimum  price  if  the' 
settler  had  complied  with  the  provisions  of  the  pre-emption 
law." 

The  homestead  law  is  a  land-mark  in  American  history 
and  the  Republican  party  deserves  credit  for  its  enactment, 
but  at  the  same  time  no  one  can  fail  to  see  that  it  was  not 
the  law  that  men  like  Greeley,  Evans,  and  Julian  had 
championed.  But  it  was  too  much  to  expect  of  an  American 
Congress  that  a  law  of  such  great  sectional  importance 
should  have  attained  the  ideal  of  the  squatter.  The  com- 
mon enemy — the  slave  power — Shaving  been  removed  from 
the  halls  of  Congress,  the  Republican  majority  lost  its 
homogeneity  and  so  the  law  represents  a  compromise  between 
the  East  and  the  West. 

George  W.  Julian,  who  throughout  had  stood  for  an  ideal 
law,  has  made  the  following  criticism  of  the  law  on  the  stat- 
utes :  '**     (1)  It  provided  no  safeguards  against  speculation. 

"The  Morrill  Act,  approved  by  the  President  July  9,  1868,  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  '^e  liberal  and  practical  education  of  the  indus- 
trial classes  in  the  several  pursuits  and  professions  of  life,"  had  been 
before  Congress  since  1&S7,  but  it  seems  to  have  exercised  little  or  no 
influence  on  the  homestead  bill.  Generally  speaking,  it  was  favored  by 
the  West  and  North  and  opposed  by  the  South.  There  was,  however, 
considerable  opposition  in  the  West,  where  it  was  feared  that  it  would 
operate  in  somewhat  the  same  way  that  the  proposed  indigent  insane 
law  was  expected  to.  The  8t.  Pettr  Trihunt  (June  4,  1862)  declared  it 
would  rob  the  West  of  millions  of  acres  of  public  lands  and  some  States 
of  all  the  benefits  of  the  homestead  bill.  The  old  States,  if  continued, 
would  receive  the  large  proportion  of  the  lands,  while  the  new  States 
would  not  receive  enough  to  erect  and  endow  a  respectable  academy, 
even  if  they  were  willing  to  accept  a  fund  so  acquired  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  snug  berths  for  a  few  seedy  politicians.  See  James, 
The  MorriU  Act. 

"Julian,  BeeoUeetioni,  916-318.  See  an  article  by  the  same  author 
in  the  North  Ameriean  B«vi«v>.  CXXXVI.,  937-956  (March,  1883),  en- 
titled "Railway  Influence  in  the  Land  OiBce."    The  Secretary  of  the 


The  Homeitead  Law,  1869 


MS 


Our  settlers  were  offered  homes  of  160  acres  each  on  con- 
dition of  occupancj  and  improvement,  but  the  speculator 
could  throw  himself  across  their  track  by  buying  up  large 
bodies  of  choice  land  to  be  held  back  from  settlement  and 
tillage  for  a  raise  in  price.  (2)  Under  the  land  grant 
policy  which  was  simultaneously  inaugurated,  extensive 
tracts  fell  into  the  clutches  of  monopolists,  which  would 
have  gone  to  actual  settlers  under  the  homestead  law. 
(3)  Under  the  new  Indian  policy  introduced  about  the  same 
time,  large  bodies  of  land,  when  released  by  our  Indian  tribes, 
were  sold  at  low  rates  to  individual  speculators  and 
monopolists,  or  to  railway  corporations,  instead  of  being 
conveyed,  as  before,  to  the  United  States,  and  thus  sub- 
jected to  a  general  disposition  as  other  public  lands.  This 
led  to  much  corruption  both  within  and  without  Congress. 

Interior,  Cari  Schun,  in  two  letters  to  Julian  took  excepticm  to  certain 
statements  in  the  article.    Schun,  Corr0$pond0net,  IV.,  168-181,  184-194. 


,•« 


!t3 


^^ 

!  *  ■ 


m^>. 


RETROSPECT 

A  LTHOUGH  our  land  laws  have  been  far  from  ideal,  and 
•^*-  the  men  charged  with  the  duty  of  executing  them  were 
in  many  instances  incompetent  and  corrupt,  it  is  never- 
theless true  that  morality  cannot  be  legislated  into  a  people 
and  the  very  best  laws  would  have  been  evaded.  The  prob- 
lem of  the  American  people  in  the  disposition  of  the  public 
lands  has  been  stupendous  and  in  solving  it  their  govern^ 
ment  has  displayed  its  well-known  optimistic  liberality  and 
short-sightedness.  But  they  were  not  confronted  with  a  the- 
ory ;  it  was  a  condition  which  only  time  and  experience  could 
solve. 

It  is  impossible  for  the  present  generation  to  estimate 
the  influence  of  the  public  lands  upon  the  development  of 
the  nation.  Not  only  in  this  country,  but  in  every  country, 
questions  of  land  in  various  forms  have  been  at  the  bottom 
of  political  division ;  ^  but  in  a  new  country  the  influence 
of  the  public  domain  is  tremendous.  In  his  celebrated  Re- 
port Lord  Durham,*  in  1839,  wrote:  "The  warmest  ad- 
mirers, and  the  strongest  opponents  of  republican  institu- 
tions admit  or  assert  that  the  amazing  prosperity  of  the 
United  States  is  less  owing  to  their  form  of  government, 
than  to  the  unlimited  supply  of  fertile  lands,  which  main- 
tains succeeding  generations  in  an  undiminishing  aflluence 

*  See  Ellis,  The  Opening,  tk«  Un  and  th»  Future  of  our  Domain  o» 
thU  Continent,  30;  Welling.  The  Land  Politiet  of  the  United  States,  5. 
Thompson,  Profitable  Fielde  of  Invettigation  in  Mediaval  Hittorjf, 
American  Historical  Review,  XVIII.,  494  seq. 

'Lucas,  Lord  Durham's  Report,  I.,  IM;  Cf.  Ibid.,  S19  leq. 

Me 


■!  -! 


R0tro$peei 


U1 


of  fertile  ioil.** 

While  the  public  lands  have  been  the  cause  of  violent 
sectional'sm,  they  have  also  at  all  times  been  a  strong  bond 
of  union.'  The  national  movement  for  the  conservation  of 
natural  resources,  and  the  consequent  abandonment  of  the 
extreme  individualistic  exploitive  idea  is  one  of  the  later 
manifestations  of  this.  Moreover,  many  clear-sighted 
Americans  realize  that  now  that  the  free  lands  are  gone 
individualism  in  America  faces  a  critical  struggle  against 
communism  and  socialism.^  It  is  not  beyond  the  range  of 
possibility  that,  had  it  not  been  for  the  policy  of  the  federal 
government  since  1840  of  loosely  following  the  principle 
that  the  public  lands  ought  to  be  converted  into  private 
lands  cultivated  by  the  owners,  the  strong  and  wide-spread 
socialistic  and  communistic  agitation  of  the  three  decades 
from  1880  to  1860  might  have  succeeded  in  altering  the 
structure  of  American  society.' 

The  conditions  between  the  years  1840  and  1860  were 
sure  to  give  birth  to  a  violent  sectional  controversy  over 
the  disposition  of  the  public  domain.  The  marvelous  pros- 
perity of  the  country  had  built  up  an  unwieldy  surplus  in 
the  federal  treasury.  The  sections  and  interests  were  di- 
vided as  to  whether  the  land  fund  should  be  divided  among 
the  States,  whether  the  tariff  should  be  reduced,  or  whether 
the  government  should  abandon  the  policy  of  selling  the 
public  lands  and  donate  them  to  actual  settlers  or  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  industrial,  educational,  and  charitable 
enterprises. 


•Turner,  aignifieanet  of  tlu  Frontier,  il8,  891. 

*  Turner,  Social  Foreu  im  AmeHcan  History,  9SS  seq. 

'Rudolf  Mtyer,  H«imi»tmen  und  andera  W^tkBchaftgetetze  d«r 
FarfiiUytra  Staafn  von  Amtrika,  etc.,  S85;  Hill,  TK»  PtAUe  Domaim 
and  Dtmoeraejf,  35. 


lit 


If  i 


11 


S48        TAtf  Poltftcoi  History  of  the  Public  Landt 

The  panic  of  1887  swept  away  the  surplus  but  not  th» 
agitation  for  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales 
of  the  public  lands.  The  panic  compelled  the  cessation  of 
the  internal  improvement  designs  of  the  Western  States  and 
forced  some  of  them  to  sdl  their  improvements,  but  with 
the  prospect  of  heavy  direct  taxes  as  a  result  of  large  State 
debts  and  ruined  credit  confronting  them,  many  voters 
turned  to  distribution  as  a  remedy.  The  failure  of  the 
distributionists  to  overcome  the  opposition  of  those  who  de- 
manded pre-emption  and  homestead  and  the  element  opposed 
to  a  high  tariff  combined  with  the  existence  of  a  national 
debt,  a  legacy  of  the  disturbed  financial  conditions  after 
the  panic  and  the  Mexican  War,  proved  fatal  to  the  cause 
of  distribution. 

The  pre-emption  law  of  1841  was  the  result  of  irresistible 
forces :  the  unprecedented  growth  of  the  West  and  the  qual- 
ity of  its  leaders  in  Congress  enabled  this  section  to  dic- 
tate to  the  other  sections.  The  balance  of  political  power 
might  at  any  time  be  disturbed  by  this  powerful  and  rest- 
less section.  The  part  it  played  in  the  election  of  1840  was 
sufficiently  great  to  enable  any  astute  politician  to  read 
the  signs  of  the  times.  The  mem .  of  Calhoun's  cession 
proposition,  the  Loco-Foco  revolt  with  its  far-reaching  con- 
sequences, and  the  dangerous  situation  of  thousands  of 
squatters  on  the  public  lands  in  violation  of  law  all  con- 
tributed to  the  final  result.  The  squatter  was  a  hard  man 
to  deal  with.  He  was  high-spirited,  independent,  and 
courageous,  and  in  dealing  with  him  the  government  had  to 
proceed  cautiously.  He  vaulted  the  legal  fence  around 
the  reserved  portions  of  the  public  domain  without  com- 
punction. He  was  not  disposed  to  settle  on  inferior  land 
just  because  it  had  been  surveyed  and  officially  declared 
open  to  settlement  when  there  were  thousands  of  acres  of 


R»iro»p*ei 


W» 


♦he  very  bett  land  a  little  further  on.  To  attempt  to  ex- 
vi\  him  by  force  waa  a  very  dangerous  thing;  in  fact,  it 
is  a  question  whether  an  American  army  would  have  carried 
out  orders  to  do  so.* 

The  pre-emption  law  satisfied  the  West  and  the  friends 
of  a  liberal  land  system  for  a  time,  but  with  the  enormous 
increase  of  the  public  domain  as  a  result  of  the  War  with 
Mexico,  the  great  increase  in  the  mercantile  activity  of  the 
East,  the  development  of  the  West,  the  growth  of  cities, 
and  the  ever  increasing  immigration,  the  movement  for  even 
more  liberal  land  laws  pushed  steadily  onward.  Against 
these  forces  was  pitted  a  solid  section  whose  destiny  was 
thought  to  depend  on  the  maintenance  and  expansion  of 
the  institution  of  slavery.  The  millions  of  acres  of  un- 
occupied land  in  Iowa,  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Minnesota,  and 
California  were  a  prize  which  both  freedom  and  slavery 
coveted.  Alongside  of  this  solid  phalanx  were  drawn  up 
those  elements  in  the  other  sections,  but  especially  in  the 
East,  whose  interests  and  ideals  were  hostile  to  a  system 
which  was  certain  to  introduce  radical  changes  in  the  struc- 
ture of  American  society.  Land  grants  to  railways,  land 
bounties  to  soldiers,  donations  to  various  enterprises  all 
contributed  their  influence.  In  the  West,  too,  as  we  have 
pointed  out,  the  liberal  land  movement  met  obstacles.  As 
Professor  Turner  has  pointed  out,  American  society  has 
been  continually  beginning  over  again.^  Each  successive 
advance  of  the  frontier  has  reacted  upon  the  older  settle- 
ments. With  the  settlement  of  each  area  society  threw  off 
its  trammels,  only  to  grow,  consciously  and  unconsciously, 
into  a  Htate  resembling  that  which  it  left.  The  result  was 
that  the  "Old  West"  was  in  many  respects  antagonistic  to 

■  C<mg.  Olobt,  96  Cong.,  9  Sess.,  Ap.  34. 

^Turner,  Bijfuifieane0  of  tk»  Fronti»r,  900-906. 


\ii> 


V  I  I 


MO       Th4  PoUiical  HUtory  of  f^  PttbUe  Lanii 

the  "New  Weft." 

The  lettlement  of  the  public  land  question  inToWed  the 
vital  problem  of  adjuitment  between  old  and  new  society. 
The  ideal  solution,  of  course,  was  that  which  would  render 
the  country  the  most  attractive  to  capitalists,  laborers,  and 
all  classes  of  society.  But  in  a  country  embracing  the 
varied  interests  of  the  United  States  no  such  solution  was 
possible;  each  section  pulled  in  its  own  direction.  The  re- 
sult was  certain  to  be  a  compromise.  The  ideals  of  Ben- 
ton, Calhoun,  Clay,  Greeley,  Evans,  and  Johnson  were 
doomed  to  disappointment  in  a  system  of  government 
founded  on  the  principle  of  checks  and  balances. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


THE  material  for  the  political  hiitorj  of  the  public 
lands  from  1840  to  186S  is  found  principallj  in  three 
sources:  the  Congreaiional  Globe,  newspapers,  and  the  cor- 
respondence of  public  men.  The  first  two  are  bj  far  the 
most  important. 

The  Congressional  CHohe  is  a  veritable  mine  of  informa- 
tion on  the  subject.  The  investigator  must  not  confine  his 
examination  to  the  debates  on  land  bills ;  if  he  did,  he  would 
overlook  much  valuable  information  because  the  public  land 
question  involves  so  many  phases  of  public  policy.  It  is 
almost  safe  to  say  that  the  student  cannot  afford  to  dis- 
regard a  single  page  of  the  Congressional  Globe.  Besides 
the  speeches  and  votes  of  congressmen,  the  provisions  of 
land  bills  and  petitions  and  memorials  which  cannot  be  found 
elsewhere  are  preserved.  In  the  House  and  Senate  Jour- 
nals are  printed  certain  land  bills  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Globe  and,  of  course,  more  accurately  recorded  votes.  The 
Congressional  Docwnents  are  rather  disappointing.  They 
contain  some  important  committee  reports,  the  Reports  of 
the  Secretaries  of  the  Treasury  and  Interior,  and  of  the 
Commissioners  of  the  General  Land  Office  besides  a  few  pe- 
titions and  memorials  printed  in  toto.  The  FUes  of  tht 
House  of  Representatives,  preserved  in  the  Capitol,  are 
very  incomplete  and  for  this  period  poorly  classified,  but  the 
originals  of  some  important  and  often  humorous  and  sugge»- 
tive  petitions  are  found  there.  Richardson's  Messages  and 
Papers  and  the  Statutes  at  Large  are  indispensable. 

t5l 


«5«       TJie  Political  History  of  *' '  T'ubKc  Land$ 


l!»- 


1  *  < 
I 


w 


The  newspapers  examined  are  preserved  in  the  Harvard 
College  Library,  the  Boston  Public  Library,  the  Library  of 
Congress,  the  Libraries  of  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society 
and  of  the  State  Historical  Society  of  Wisconsin.  For  the 
most  complete  files  of  representative  papers  from  every 
section  of  the  country  the  Congressional  Library  excels.  It 
is  especially  rich  in  Southern  papers.  The  Wisconsin  li- 
brary possesses  the  valuable  and  rare  files  of  the  Working 
Man's  Advocate. 

The  importance  of  newspapers  in  a  study  of  the  public 
sentiment  relative  to  the  public  land  policy  cannot  be  over- 
emphasized. The  speeches  in  Congress  are  frequently  of 
small  importance,  but  the  editorials  in  newspapers  in  this 
period  are  very  valuable,  especially  on  a  subject  which  was 
of  such  vital  importance  to  all  sections.  They  personify  to 
an  unusual  degree  the  public  opinion  of  their  constituency. 
One  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  ability  of  the  editors, 
especiaUy  in  the  West.  He  would  be  a  rash  man,  indeed, 
who  would  dare  to  question  the  tremendous  influence  of 
Greeley's  Trifctwie,  Ritchie's  Richmond  Enquirer,  Rhett's 
Charleston  Mercury,  and  Evans's  Working  Man's  Advocate. 
The  Washington  correspondence  of  the  larger  papers  is  re- 
freshingly informing  and  reliable  in  comparison  with  that  of 
the  present  day.  But  even  if  the  newspapers  had  no  other 
value,  the  fact  that  they  enable  the  investigator  to  "check 
up"  the  speeches  of  congressmen  would  be  a  real  service. 
Moreover,  in  scanning  the  pages  of  the  papers  the  eye  fre- 
quently falls  on  material  which  might  not  otherwise  be  se- 
cured, as,  for  example,  governors'  messages,  proceedings  in 
State  legislatures,  accounts  of  public  meetings,  side  lij^ts  on 
public  men,  and  local  conditions. 

The  correspondence  of  Calhoun,  Clay,  Van  Buren,  Ty- 
ler, and,  to  a  lesser  degree,  Andrew  Johnson,  Schurz,  Web- 


•  ^ 


Bibliography 


fSS 


ster  and  Crittenden  and  the  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams 
are  of  first  importance. 

The  scattered  nature  of  the  material  on  the  public  lands 
is  attested  by  the  absence  of  secondary  works.  An  ex- 
haustive history  of  the  public  domain  will  necessitate  an  un- 
tiring search  through  the  files  of  widely  scattered  news- 
papers, a  minute  examination  of  the  Congressional  Globe, 
a  searching  inquiry  into  the  archives  of  State  libraries,  and 
the  study  of  the  correspondence  of  a  large  nimiber  of  men. 

PuBUc  Documents 

Senate  and  House  Journals. 

Congressional  Debates. 

Congressional  Globe. 

Senate  and  House  Documents,  including  Executive  and  Mis- 
cellaneous '^  -^cuments  and  Reports  of  Committees. 

Files  of  the  Hou^e  of  Representatives,  preserved  in  the  Cap- 
itol at  Washington. 

Reports  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Interior  and  the 
Commissioners  of  the  General  Land  Office. 

Richardson,  J.  D.,  A.  Compilation  of  the  Messages  and  Par 
pers  of  the  Presidents,  1789-1897.  (Washington,  1896, 
etc.) 

Statutes  at  Large  of  the  United  States  of  America.  (Bos- 
ton, 1850,  etc.) 

Reports  made  to  the  Senate  and  House  of  RepresentatvoeSt 
of  the  State  of  Illinois,  etc.  (Springfield,  His.,  1841, 
1842.) 

COEBXSPOMDEMCK,  MeMOUS,  AND  DiAKIES,  lNCI.in>INO  WOEBI 
or   A   CONTEMPOBANEOVS   NaTUEB 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  editor.  Memoirs  of  John  Qfiimeff 
Adams,  etc.  (IS  vols.,  Fhila.,  1874-1876.) 


II 


: 


I', 


11- If 


i 


m 


254        The  Political  History  of  the  PubUe  Landt 

Baker,  G.  E.,  editor,  Workt  of  WiUiam  H.  Seward.     (8 

vols..  New  York,  185S-1884.) 
Benton,  Thomas  Hart,  Thirty  Yeart'  View,  etc.     (2  voli., 

New  York,  1854-1856.) 
Brownlow,  W.  G.,  editor,  A  Political  Register,  etc.     (Jones- 
borough,  Tenn.,  1844.) 
Calhoun,  John  C,  Correspondence.     Edited  by  J.  Frank- 
lin   Jameson.     American   Historical   Association,   Re^ 

port,  1899,  II.    (Washington,  1900.) 
Calhoun,  John  C,  Works.     Edited  by  Richard  K,  Crall£. 

(6  vols.,  N.  Y.,  1851-1866.) 
Calhoun  Text  Book,  The.     (N.  Y.,  1848.) 
Coleman,  Mrs.  Chapman.     The  Life  of  John  J.  Crittenden, 

xeith  selections  from  his  correspondence  and  speeches. 

(«  vols.,  Phila,  1871.) 
Colton,  Calvin,  The  Private  Correspondence  of  Henry  Clay. 

(N.  Y.,  1865.) 
Colton,  Calvin,  The  Works  of  Henry  Clay.     (6  vols.,  N.  Y., ' 

1863.) 
Crittenden,    John    Jordan,    Calendar    of    the   Papers    of, 

(Washington,  1918.) 
Ewing,  Thomas,  Diary.    Aug.  and  Sept.,  1841.    American 

Historical  Review,  XVIIL,  97-118.    (Oct.,  191«.) 
Foot,  Samuel  A.,  Autobiography,  etc.     («  vols.,   N.  Y., 

1873.) 
Frothingham,  Octavius  Brooks,  Gerritt  Sndt}^  A  Biography. 

(«  ed.,  N.  Y.,  1879.) 
Hambleton,  James  P.,  A  Biographical  Sketch  of  Henry  A. 

Wise,  etc.     (Richmond,  1855.) 
Johnson,  Andrew,  The  Papers  of.    Mas.  in  the  Library  of 

Congress. 
Julian,  George  W.,  Political  Recollections,  1840  to  1879, 

(Chicago,  1884.) 


n 

■hi 


BibUography 


t65 


Julian,  George  W.,  Select  Speeches.     (Cincinnati   1867.) 
Julian,  George  W.,  Speeches  on  Political  Questions,  etc., 

(N.  Y.,  1872.) 
Koemer,  Gustave,  Memoirs,  1809-1896.     («  vols.,  Cedar 

Rapids,  Iowa,  1909.) 
Lyon,  Lucius,  Letters,  etc.     Michigan  Pioneer  and  Histori- 
cal Collections,  XXVU.,  412-604.     (Lansing,  Mich., 

1897.) 
McCulloch,  Hugh,  Men  and  Measures  of  Half  a  Century, 

Sketches  and  Comments.     (N.  Y.,  1888.) 
Massachusetts    Historical   Society,   Proceedings^    r>08-09. 

Vol.  XLIL,  381   seq. — Some  correspondence  of  Van 

Buren. 
Nicolay,  John  6.  and  Hay,  John,  editors,  Abraham  Lincoln. 

Complete  Works,  etc.     (2  vols.,  N.  Y.,  1894.) 
Quaife,  M.  M.,  editor.  The  Diary  of  James  K.  PoUe  during 

his   Presidency,    1846    to   1849.     (4    vols.,    Chicago, 

1910.) 
Salter,  William,  The  Life  of  James  W.  Grimes,  etc.  (N.  Y., 

1376.) 
Sargent,  Nathan,  Public  Men  and  Events,  etc.     (2  vols., 

Phila.,  1676.) 
Schurz,  Carl,  Reminiscences.     (8  vols.,  N.  Y.,  1907,  1908.) 
Schurz,  Carl,  Speeches,  Correspondence  and  Political  Par 

pers,  etc.     (6  vols.,  N.  Y.,  1918.) 
Scott,  Nancy  N.,  editor,  A  Memoir  of  Hugh  Lawson  White, 

etc.     (Phila.,  1866.) 
Smith,  W.  L.   G.,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Lewis  Cass. 

(N.  Y.,  1866.)  • 
Tyler,  Lyon  G.,  The  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers.     (8 

vols.,  Richmond,  1884-1896.) 
Van  Buren,  Martin,  The  Papers  of.    Mss.  in  Library  of 

CongreM. 


Ill 


S56       Thg  Political  Hutory  of  the  Public  Lands 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  Calendar  of  the  Papers  of,  etc 
(Washington,  1910.) 

Van  Tyne,  C.  H.,  editor.  The  Letters  of  Daniel  Webster 
from  documents  owned  principMy  by  the  New  Hamp- 
shire Historical  Society.     (N.  Y.,  190«.) 

Webster,  Fletcher,  editor,  TJie  Private  Correspondence  of 
Daniel  Webster.     (2  vols.,  Boston,  1857.) 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  Sexfen  Decades  of  the  Union,  etc.  (Phila., 
187«.) 

Wise,  John  S.,  Recollections  of  Thirteen  Presidents.  (N. 
Y.,  1906.) 

Newspafekb 

The  following  list  contains  the  newspapers  which  have 
been  used.  Ths  dates  for  which  they  have  been  consulted, 
place  of  publication,  political  complexion,  and  the  libraries  * 
where  they  are  deposited,  are  given  where  possible. 


I*  =  . 


P 

i 
ft 


KEW  ENGLAND 

Boston  Courier,  1840-1842,  1864,  1860;  daily;  Whig;  Bell- 
Everett,  1860.     B. 

Boston  Evening  Mercantile  Journal  [Boston  Daily  Jour- 
nal], 1841,  1848, 1864,  1860;  daily;  Whig  and  Repub- 
lican.    B. 

Boston  Post,  1864,  1867,  1860;  daily;  Democratic;  Breck- 
enridge,  1860.     B. 

Boston  DaUy  Evening  Traveller,  Anti-Neb.,  1864.     B. 

The  Atlas  [and  Bee],  Boston,  1840-184J8,  1844,  I860; 
daily;  Whig  and  Republican.     B. 

Ttie  Voice  of  Industry,  Lowell,  Mass.     See  "Labor  Papers." 

*  Abbreviations  t  B.  =  Boston  Public  Library;  L.  C.  =  Library  of  Con- 
gress; H.  =  Harvard  College  Library  {  W.  =  Wisconsin  State  Historleal 
Library;  M.  =  Minnesota  State  Historiril  Library. 


BibUographjf 


tffr 


NKW   TOSK 

Albanff  Argus,  1840-1842;  dafly;  Democratic.     B. 

New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  17,  184«-186«  inclusive;  weekly, 
semi-weekly,  and  daily;  Whig  and  Republican.     L.  C. 

The  Log  Cabin,  published  simultaneously  in  New  York  and 
Albany;  May  9  to  Nov.  11,  1840;  weekly;  Whig.     B. 

The  Harbinger.  Devoted  to  Social  and  Political  Progress. 
Published  by  the  Brook  Farm  Phalanx,  New  York, 
Dec.  18,  1846— Oct.  9,  1847;  weekly.     W. 

The  Herald  of  the  New  Moral  World  and  Millennial  Har- 
binger, New  York,  Jan.  9,  1841— Aug.  8,  184«— A 
Fourier  Magazine.     W. 

PENN8T1.VAKIA 

The  North  American  and  Daily  Advertiser  (after  1848 
The  Philadelphia  North  American  and  United  States 
Gazette),  1840-184S,  1844,  1848,  185£,  1854,  1867, 
1860 ;  daily ;  Whig  and  Republican.     L.  C. 

The  Pennsylvanian,  Philadelphia,  1840-1842,  1862,  1864, 
1867;  daily;  Dem.     L.  C. 

NEW   JES8ET 

DaUy  True  American,  Trenton,  1864,  1860;  daily;  Dem.; 

Douglas,  1860.     L.  C. 
Newark  Daily  Advertiser,  1840-1842,  1867,  1860  (to  June 

80) ;  daily ;  Whig  and  Rep.     L.  C. 


DISTBICT   OF    .  OLUMBIA 


Dmiy  National  Intelligencer,  1840-1846  (incl.),  1848, 1862, 
1864,  1867,  1860,  1862;  daily;  Whig;  Bell-Everett  in 
1860.     L.  C. 


fffS       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

Evening  Star,  1864,  1867,  1860 ;  daily ;  Dcm. ;  Breckinridge 

in  1860,  but  anti-secession.     L.  C. 
The  Conttitution,  1860;  daily;  Breckinridge.    L.  C. 
The  DaUy  Union,  186«,  186S,  1867,  1860;  dafly;  Dem.; 

Douglas,  1860.    L.  C. 
The  Globe,  1840-184S ;  daily,  Dem.     L.  C. 
The  Maditonian,  1841  (semi-  and  tri-weekly),  184X  (dafly) ; 

Whig  and  later  Pro-Tyler.     L.  C. 

Slave  States 

UAKTLXm 

American  and  Commercial  Daily  Advertiser,  Baltimore, 
1841, 184«,  1844,  1867 ;  daUy ;  Whig.     L.  C. 

Baltimore  Clipper,  1864,  1860,  186«;  daily;  Know-nothing; 
Bell-Everett,  1860.    L.  C. 

The  Sun,  Baltimore,  1840-1842,  1844,  1848,  1862,  1864; 
1867,   1860;   daily;   Independent,  but   pro-Southern. 


L.  C. 


VniOINIA 


II'-- 


r  Si 


Richmond  Enquirer,  1840-1846,  1848,  1862  (semi-weekly), 
1864,  1866,  1860;  daily;  Dem.     B.  L.  C. 

Richmond  DaUy  Whig,  1840-1842,  1846-1848, 1860;  daOy ; 
Whig;  Bell-Everett  in  1860.    B.  L.  C. 

Wheeling  Daily  Intelligencer,  1863,  1862;  daily;  Whig; 
Rep.  after  1864.     L.  C. 

NOKTH    CAEOUKA 

North  Carolina  Standard,  1840-1849  (weekly),  1853- 
1854  (semi-weekly),  1856-1858  (semi-weekly),  1859 
(tri-weekly) ;  Dem.    L.  C. 


Bibliography 


U9 


WUmmgfon  Journal,  Feb.  «,  1847-18««  (weekly),  1858- 
1860  (daily) ;  Dem.    L.  C. 

SOUTH   CASOUKA 

Charleston  Daily  Courier,  1840-1860  (except  1851,  1858, 
1859);  daily;  Whig;  Independent  after  1844.  B. 
L.  C. 

Charleston  Mercury,  1844,  1848,  1857-1860;  daily;  tri- 
weekly (1860) ;  Dem.     L.  C. 


OXOKOU 

Columbus  Enquirer,  1841;  weekly;  Whig.    L.  C. 

DaUy  Chronicle  and  Sentinel,  Augusta,  185«,  1854,  1860. 
Supported  Daniel  Webster  on  an  Independent  ticket 
for  the  presidency  until  his  death  in  October,  1858; 
after  that  it  printed  the  names  of  "Fillmore  or  J.  J. 
Crittenden"  at  the  head  of  the  editorial  column.  In 
1860  it  supported  Bell-Everett  and  opposed  secession. 
L.  C. 

Federal  Union,  MiUedgeville,  1844;  daily;  Dem.     L.  C. 
The  DaUy  Georgian,  Savannah,  1840,  1841,  1854;  Dem. 
L.  C. 

The  Southern  Recorder,  MiUedgeville,  1858;  weekly;  Whig. 
L.  C. 

VX^miDA 

Florida  Republican,  JacksonviUe,  1858-1857;  weekly;  Whig 
to  1854;  Know-nothing  after  this  date.     L.  C. 

The  Florida  News,  Jacksonville,  1858,  1854,  1857;  weekly, 
Dem.    L.  C. 

The  Florida  Sentinel,  Tallahassee,  1841,  1848;  weekly; 
Whig.    L.  C. 


t60       The  PoUiical  History  of  tht  Public  Land* 

The  Floridian  [The  Floridian  and  Journal  after  1850], 
TaUahassee,  1840,  1841,  1850-1860;  weekly;  Dem. 
L.  C. 

Pentacola  Gazette,  1840-1842  (independent),  1850-185X; 
weekly;  Whig.    L.  C. 


'  -If 


iff* 


AT.A1IAlfA 

Independent  Monitor,  Tuscaloosa,  1859,  1860;  weekly; 
Bell-Everett.     L.  C. 

MohiU  Daily  Advertiser,  185«,  1857,  1860;  Whig;  Ben- 
Everett.    L.  C. 

Mobile  DaUy  Commercial  Register  and  Patriot  [MobOe 
Register  and  Journal},  1840-1842,  1857;  Dem.    L.  C. 

The  DaUy  Confederation,  Montgomery,  1860;  Dem. 
(Douglas).     L.  C. 

The  Southern  Advocate,  Huntsville,  1852;  weekly;  Whig. 
L.  C. 

MISSISSIPPI 

Cohmbus  Democrat,  1840, 1841, 1868, 1854;  weekly;  Dem. 

L.  C. 
Mississippi  Free  Trader  and  Natchez  Weekly  Gazette,  1840, 

1845,  1846-1848;  Dem.     L.  C. 
The  MissUsippian,  Jackson,  1841,  1844,  1846-1849,  1856, 

1859,    1860;    weekly;    Dem.    (Breckinridge,    1860). 

L.  C. 
Vicksburg  Weekly  Sentinel,  185S,  1854,  1855;  Dem.    L.  C. 

LOUISIANA 

Louisiana  Courier,  New  Orleans,  1854;  daily;  Dem.     L.  C 
The  De^y  Advocate,  Baton  Rouge,   1854,   1857;  Dem. 
L.  C. 


BMiographg 

Th*  DaUy  Delta,  New  Orleani,  1860;  Dcm.  Breckinridge. 

L.  C. 
The  DaUjf  Picayune,  New  Orleani,  18fiS,  18A7,  I860;  Dem. 

L.  C. 
New  Orleani  Bee,  1841 ;  dally,  Whig.    L.  C. 


TXXAI 

The  San  Antonio  Ledger,  1852-1864,  1857-1809;  weekly; 
Dem.    L.  C. 

ABKANSAI 

Arhantae  State  Gazette,  Little  Rock,   1840-1855,   1859, 

1860;  weekly;  Dem.  to  1848;  Whig  to  1846;  Dem.  to 

Aug.,  1855;  Know-nothing  after  this  date;  Bdl-Ererett 

in  1860.    L.  C. 
The  Arhantae  Banner,  1848,  1844,  1845;  weekly;  Dem. 

L.  C. 
The  Arkantat    Whig,   Littie   Rock,    1851-1854;    weekly 

Whig.    L.  C. 
The  Southern  ShieU,  Helena,  1841,   1842,   185S,   1858 

weekly;  Whig.    L.  C. 
The  True  Democrat,  Little  Rock,  1852-1855,  1858-1860 

weekly;  Dem.  (Breckinridge  in  1860).    L.  C. 
Waehmgton  TeUgraph,   1841,   1849-1854;  weekly;  Dem. 

L.  C. 

Muaoixmi 

DaUy  MietouH  Republican,  St.  Louii,  1841,  1852,  1854; 

Whig.    L.  C. 
Jeferaon  Inquirer,  Jefferson  City,  1851-1859,  1855-1857; 

weekly;  Dem.    L.  C. 
Native  American  Bulletin,  St.  Louis,  1842;  daily;  Know^ 

nothing.     L.  C. 


Th*  PoUHeal  HUiorp  of  th*  PubUe  Lmtdt 


'  J- 
lit 

.1?! 


DaUy  Republican  Banntr  [and  NathvQU  WMg  from  Jan. 
i,  185X  to  June  1,  1860],  NMhviUe,  1840-18M,  185S, 
18A4,  18S7-1860;  Whig;  BeU-Everett.    L.  C. 

Memphii  DaUy  Appeal,  1858,  1854,  1857,  1860,  Dem. 
(DouglM  in  1860.)     L.  C. 

Memphie  DaUy  Eagle  and  Enquirer,  1852,  1858;  Whig. 
Memphit  DtMy  Enquirer,  Jan.  1  to  June  80,  1860; 
BeU-Everett. 

NaehmOe  Union  and  American,  1857-1860;  daily;  Dem. 
(Breckinridge  in  1860.)    L.  C.     B. 

KnosviOe  Standard,  1847,  1848;  weekly;  Dem.    L.  C. 

The  MempMe  DaUy  Avalanche,  1859,  1860;  Dem.  (Breck- 
inridge in  1860.)    L.  C. 

KXNTVCXT 

Kentucky  Gasette,  Lexington,  1840,  1841;  weekly;  Dem. 
L.  C. 

Lexington  Obaerver  and  Reporter,  1842;  temi-weekly; 
Whig.     L.  C. 

LouievUle  DaUy  Journal,  1841,  1857;  Whig.    B.    L.  C. 

The  Commonwealth,  Frankfort,  1841,  1842;  weekly;  Whig. 
L.  C. 

The  Kentucky  Yeoman,  Frankfort,  1858-1855, 1860 ;  weekly 
and  tri-weekly;  Dem.     (Breckinridge  in  1860.)     L.  C. 

The  LouievUle  DaUy  Courier,  1852,  1860;  Whig.  (Breck- 
inridge in  1860.)     L.  C. 

The  LouievUle  Timee,  1852, 1854 ;  Dem.    L.  C. 


Weetem  Statee 


it 


OHIO 


The  DaUy  National  Democrat,    Clereland,    1860;   Dem. 
(Breckinridge)     L.  C. 


Bibttognphg                              9m 

Th*  DaUy  Ohio  State$man,  Columbus,  1840,  1807,  1860; 

Dem.    (DouglM  in  1860.)     L.  C. 

The  Ohio  Statt  Journal,  1841 ;  Minl-weeklj;  Whig.    L.  C. 

DfSUMA 

Ddip  Indiana  Stait  Smtind,   Indianapolis,   1854;   Dem. 

(Pro-Nebraska.)    L.  C. 
LalayttU   DaSly   Journal     1808,    1854;    Anti-Nebraska. 

L.C. 
Southern   Indianian,    Charlcstown,    1840,    1841;    wecklj. 

L.  C. 
Ths  Amariean  EagU,  Paoli,  1860;  weekly;  Dem.     (Neu- 
tral between  Douj^as  and  Breckinridge.)     L.  C. 
Tha  Fort  Wayna  SentinO,  1860 ;  weekly ;  Dem.     (Douglas. ) 

L.C. 
Th*  RepubUean  Banner^  Madison,  1841;  weekly;  Whig. 

L.  C. 
Th»  RuthvSU  Jack$onian,  1860  (incomplete) ;  weekly;  Dem. 

(Douglas.)     L.  C. 
Wabash  Couritr,  Terre  Haute,  1840,  1841;  weekly;  Whig. 

L.  C. 
Waibath  Exfreu,  Terre  Haute,  1841, 1842;  weekly;  Whig. 

L.C. 

njuNou 

Chicago  DaUy  Preat,  1857.    L.  C 

Chicago  Prta$  and  Tr9nm$,  1858-1860;  weekly;  Republican. 

W. 
nUnoia   RcpuhUcan,    Shawneetown,    184S,    1848;   weekly; 

Whig.    L.  C. 
lUimoia    State    Rcgittcr,    SpringfieU,    1848-1854,    1857; 

weekly;  Don.     (Douglas  organ.)     L.  C 


t64       7^  PoUtkal  Hiitory  of  tlu  PubUe  Landt 


Peoria  Regitter  and  North-We$tern  Gaxeteer,  1841,  184S; 
weekly;  Whig.     L.  C. 

Th0  Alton  Telegraph  [and  Maditon  County  Recordl^  18S1- 
1804;  weekly;  Whig.     L.  C. 

The  Daily  Democratic  Preu,  Chicago,  1854;  Dem.  (Anti- 
Nebraska.)     L.  C. 

The  lUinoia  State  Journal,  Springfield,  1857,  1860,  1861 ; 
weekly  (daily  Jan.  and  Feb.,  1857);  Republican. 
L.  C. 

Weekly  Northweatern  Gazette,  Galena,  1851,  1852;  Whig. 
L.  C. 

MICHIOAN 

Democratic  Free  Preaa  (weekly),  1840-184S.     L.  C 
Detroit  Free  Preaa  (daily),  1854,  1860;  Dem.     (Pro-Ne- 
braska in  1854;  Douglas  in  1860.)     L.  C. 
NHea  Republican,  1841,  1842;  weekly;  Whig;  Dem.  after 
about  Dec.  1841.    L.  C. 


{-f      --k 

i 


f 

I 
* 

i 

I 

i 

r  '1 


WISCONSIK 

Green  Bay  Republican,  1841-184S;  weekly;  Whig.    L.  C. 

MUteaukee  Morning  Neva,  1854;  daily;  Dem.     L.  C. 

The  Appleton  Creacent,  1860,  1861 ;  weekly ;  Dem.  (Doug- 
las.)    L.  C. 

The  Democratic  Preaa,  Fond  du  Lac,  1859,  1860;  weekly; 
Dem.     (Douglas.)     L.  C. 

Weekly  Argua  and  Democrat,  Madison,  1854,  1855,  1857, 
1859 ;  weekly ;  Dem.     L.  C. 

Wiaconain  Stateaman,  1850,  1851;  weekly;  Whig.     B. 

IOWA  ■ 

CouncH  Bluffa  Bugle,  1855  (semi-weekly),  1869,  I860 
(weekly);  Dem.     (Douglas  in  1860.)     L.  C. 


BUMograpKff 

Daily  Statt  Democrat  [Dotfy  Iowa  State  Democrat;  Dotty 

Democrat  and  Newi],  Davenport,   1805-1807,   1859* 

1860;  Dem.     (Douglaa  in  I860.)     L.  C. 
Democratic  Banner,  Davenport,  1854,  1855;  weeklj;  Dem. 

L.  C. 
Dee  Moinee  VaOey  Whig,  Keokuk,  185S;  weekly;  Whig. 

L.  C. 
Dutmqu*  Weekly  Etepreet  and  Herald,  1859-1860;  weekly; 

Dem.     (Douglai  in  1860.)     L.  C. 
Uawkeye  and  Iowa  Patriot,  Burlington,  1841,  184X,  1849- 

1851,  1861;  weekly;  Whig;  Republican.    L.  C. 
Iowa  Territorial  Gazette  and  Burlington  Advertiaer  [Iowa 

State  Gazette],  1840,  1841,  1858,  1854,  1858,  1859; 

weekly;  Dem.     L.  C. 
The  Iowa  Republican,  Iowa  City,  1852-1854 ;  weekly ;  Whig. 

L.  C. 
The  Iowa  Sentinel,  Fairfield,  1854,  1855,  1856;  weekly; 

Dem.    L.  C. 
The  Keokttk  Diepatch,  1856,  1854,  1855;  weekly;  Dem. 

L.  C. 

MINKKflOTA 

The  Minnesota  papers  listed  below  huvt  been  pretty 
thorou^ly  studied  from  1848  to  186f .  They  are  all  found 
in  the  Library  of  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society. 

Minnetota  Statesman,  St.  Peter;  weekly. 
St.  Anthony  Expreee,  Republican. 
Smnt  Peter*e  Courier;  weekly;  Dem. 
Saint  Peter  Tribune;  weekly;  Republican. 
The  Miwneeotian,  St.  Paul. 

The  Minnesota  Chronicle  [and  Registerjt  St.  Paul;  Whig. 
The  Minnesota  Democrat,  St.  Paul ;  daily ;  Republican  after 
1856. 


tea       The  PoUtical  Hutory  of  tlu  Public  Land§ 

The  Minnesota  Pioneer,  St.  Paul ;  daily ;  Dem. 

The  Minnetota  Timet,  St.  Paul;  daily;  Republican. 


XAKSAt 

Katutu  National  Democrat,  Lecompton,  1857,  1859»  18d0, 
1861 ;  weekly ;  Dem.     (Breckinridge  in  1860.)     L.  C 

The  Kansas  Weekly  Herald,  Leavenworth,  1855-1857; 
Dem.     (Pro-tlavery.)     L.  C. 

The  Conservative,  Leavenworth,  1862.     L.  C. 

Weekly  Western  Argus,  Wyandotte  City,  1859, 1860;  Dcn^ 


L.  C. 


NXBaAIXA     TUErrOBT 


(,. 


Nebraska    Newt,    Nebraska    City,    1857,    1860:    weekly; 

Dem.    (Douglas  in  1860.)     L.  C. 
The  Nebraska  Advertiser,  Brownville,  1857,  1858;  weekly; 

Dem.    L.  C. 
The  [Omaha]  Nebraskian,  Omaha  City,  1857-1860;  weekly; 

Dem.     (Douglas  in  1860.)    L.  C. 


CAUrOENIA 

DaUy  Alta  CaUfomia,  San  Francisco,  1852,  1854.    L.  C. 

DaUy  Globe,  San  Francisco,  1857 ;  Dem.    L.  C. 

Daily  San  Joaquin  Republican,  1857 ;  Dem.    L.  C 

Los  Angeles  Star,  1851,  1852 ;  weekly.    L.  C. 

The  Democratic  State  Journal,  Sacramento,  1856,  1856, 

1857 ;  daily ;  Dem.    L.  C. 
The  Empire  County  Argut,  Coloma,  1854,  1855;  weekly; 

Dem.     L.  C. 
The  San  Francisco  Herald,  1860;  daily;  Dem.     (BrecUa- 

ridge.)    L.  C 


BibUography 


9tn 


OEXOON 

Oregon  Weekly  Tit        Portland,  1858,  1804,  1860.    Dem. 

(Douglas  in  ISbC. )     L.  C. 
The    [Portland]    Oregonian,    1850-1868,    186S;    weeklj; 

Whig;  Republican.     L.  C. 
The  Oregon  Argue,  Oregon  City,  186«;  weekly;  Republican. 

L.  C. 
The   Oregon   Sentinel,   Jacksonville,    1859,    1860,    186S; 

weekly;  Dem.     (Breckinridge  in  1860.)     L.  C. 
The  Oregon  Statesman,  Salem,  1858-1857;  weekly;  Dem. 

L.  C. 

Thx  Labok  Motkxxnt 


PAPxas 

Der  VoUce-Tribun,  1846;  weekly.     Organ  of  the  German 

Association  of  Social  Reform  in  New  York.    W. 
Die  Reform,  1858, 1854,  New  York;  weekly  and  later  daily. 

W. 
Sociale    RepubUk,    Organ    der    freien    Arbeiter.     Eigen- 

thiimer  und  Herausgeber:  Der  Arbeiterbund  in  New 

York,  1858,  1859,  1860;  weekly.    W. 
The  Voice  of  Industry,  Lowell,  Mass.,  Organ  of  the  New 

England  Labor  Reform  League.     1846,  1847;  weekly. 

W. 
The  Working  Man's  Advocate,  New  York,  1844,  1845, 

1848:  weekly.     W. 
Young  America,  New  York,  1848  (one  number,  Sept.  9S). 

W. 

OTHXa   SOUBCM 

Byrdsall,  F.,  The  History  of  the  Loco-Foco   or  Equal 


f68       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Landi 


*?ic: 


Bighta  Party,  etc.     (N.  Y.,  184«.)— Written  bj  one 
of  the  leaden  in  the  party. 

Commons,  J.  R.  et  al.,  editors,  Docwnentary  History  of 
American  Induatrial  Society.  (10  vols.,  Cleveland, 
1909-1911.)  Vols,  v.,  VII.,  and  VIII.  contain  inte^ 
esting  and  valuable  material  on  land  reform,  and  an 
article  by  Prof.  Commons  on  Horace  Greeley. 

Greeley,  Horace,  Hint$  toward  Refornu,  etc.  (2  ed.,  N.  Y., 
185S.) 

Greeley,  Horace,  RecoUectioru  of  a  Busy  Ltfe,  etc.  (N. 
Y.,  1868.) 

Gregory,  John  Goadby,  The  Land  Limitation  Movement, 
A  Wiacontin  Episode  of  1848-1861.  Parkman  Club 
Papers,  1897,  No.  14,  pp.  89-ll«. 

Hammond,  Jabez  D.,  Life  and  Times  of  SUas  Wright,  etc. 
(Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  1848.) — Valuable  material  on  the 
activity  of  the  National  Reformers  in  New  York  in 
1846. 

Hammond,  Jabez  D.,  The  History  of  Political  Parties  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  etc.  (2  vols.,  Albany,  1842.)- 
Chapter  41  has  an  account  of  the  Loco-Foco  party. 

Jenkins,  John  S.,  The  Life  of  SUas  Wright,  etc.  (Auburn 
and  Buffalo,  1847?)— Material  on  the  anti-rent 
troubles. 

Jenkins,  John  S.,  Lives  of  the  Governors  of  the  State  of 
New  York.     (Auburn,  N.  Y.,  1851.) 

Linn,  William  Alexander,  Horace  Greeley,  etc.  (N.  Y., 
1903.) 

Masquerier,  Lewis,  Sociology;  or  the  Reconstruction  of  So- 
ciety, Government,  and  Property,  etc.  (N.  Y.,  1877.) 
— Contains  sketches  of  George  Evans  and  other  Land 
Reformers.  Considerable  fugitive  material  published 
before  I860  and  since,  giving  a  good  idea  of  the  spirit 


Bibliography 


«60 


of  the  Land  Reform  Movement  and  its  leaden. 
Parton,  J.,  The  Life  of  Horace  Greeley,  etc.     (N.  Y., 
1855.) 

Thb  OsaicAKS  AMD  Lakd  Rkfokx 

Bruncken,   Ernest,   The    Germann   in    Witconsin  Politict. 

UntU  the  Rite  of  the  Republican  Party.     Parkman 

Oub  Papers,  1896,  pp.  «£5-2S8. 
Curtis,  Francis,  The  Republican  Party,  etc.     (2  vols.,  N. 

Y.,  1904.) 
Desmond,     Humphrey     J.,     The     Know-Nothing     Party. 

(Washington,  1904.) 
Faust,  Albert  Bemhard,  The  German  Element  in  the  Umted 

States,  etc.     (2  vols.,  Boston  and  N.  Y.,  1909.) 
Koemer,  Memoirs. 

Schurz,  Reminiscences  and  Correspondence. 
Sociale  Republik. 

Gemekal  Bibuookapht 

Ambler,  Charles  Henry,  Thomas  Ritchie,  A  Study  m  Vir- 
ginia Politics.     (Richmond,  Va.,  1913.) 

Ambler,  Charles  Henry,  Virgima  and  the  Presidential  Suc- 
cession, 1840-18U-  Turner  Essays,  165-«0ie.  (N. 
Y.,  1910.) 

Ballagh,  James  Curtis,  Introdtiction  to  Southern  Economic 
History — The  Land  System. — Part  1.  American  His- 
torical Association,  Report,  1897,  99-129. 

Ballagh,  James  Curtis,  Southern  Economic  History:  Tariff 
and  Public  Lands.  American  Historical  Association* 
Report,  1899,  281-263. 

Bancroft,  Frederick,  The  Life  of  W'l^iam  H.  Seward.  (2 
vols.,  N.  Y.,  1900.) 


^i 


f70       The  Political  History  of  the  Public  Lands 

Bancroft,  George,  Martin  Van  Buren  to  the  End  of  hit  Pub- 
lic Career.     (N.  Y.,  1889.) 

Beard,  Charles  A.,  An  Economic  Interpretation  of  the  Com- 
etitution  of  the  United  States.     (N.  Y.,  1918.) 

Bien,  Morris,  The  Public  Lands  of  the  United  States. 
North  American  Review.  Vol.  19«,  pp.  887-40*. 
(July,  1910.) 

Bourne,  Edward  G.,  The  History  of  the  Surplus  Revensu  of 
1837,  etc.     (N.  Y.,  1885.) 

Brlgham,  Johnson,  Janus  Harlan.  (Iowa  City,  Iowa, 
1918.) 

Chase,  Lucien  B.,  History  of  the  Polk  Administration.  (N. 
Y.,  1850.) 

Chotteau,  Leon,  Le  President  Andrew  Johnson.  (Paris, 
1868.) 

Clay,  Thomas  Hart,  Henry  Clay.     (Phila.,  1910.) 

Colgrove,  Kenneth  W.,  The  Attitude  of  Congress  toward 
the  Pioneers  of  the  West  from  1789-1820.  The  Iowa 
Journal  of  History  and  Politics,  VIII.,  No.  1.  (Janu- 
ary, 1910.) 

Colgrove,  Kenneth  W.,  The  Attitude  of  Congress  toward  the 
Pioneers  of  the  West,  1820-1860.  Ibid.,  IX.,  No.  «. 
(April,  1911.) 

Collier,  James,  The  Pastoral  Age  in  Australasia.  (Lon- 
don, 1911.) 

Cox,  Samuel  S.,  Free  Land  and  Free  Trade,  etc.  (N.  Y., 
1880.) 

Cox,  Samuel  S.,  Three  Decades  of  Federal  Legislation,  1866- 
1885.     (Providence,  R.  L,  1886.) 

Curtis,  George  Ticknor,  Life  of  Darnel  Webster.  («  vols., 
N.  Y.,  1870.) 

Curtis,  George  Ticknor,  Life  of  James  Buchanan,  etc.  (fl 
vols.,  N.  Y.,  1888.) 


BibUography 


m 


De  Bow,  J.  D.  B.,  The  Induttridl  Rnourcet,  etc.,  of  the 
Southern  and  We$tem  States,  etc.  (S  vols.,  New  Or- 
leaiM,  18AS,  180S.) 

Democratic  National  Convention,  held  in  1860,  at  Charles- 
ton and  Baltimore,  Official  Proceedings.  (Cleveland, 
1860.) 

Dewey,  Davis  Rich,  Financial  History  of  the  United  States. 
(8  ed.,  N.  Y.,  1907.) 

Dodd,  William  E.,  Profitable  Fields  of  Investigation  in 
American  History,  1816-1860.  American  Historical 
Review,  XVIII.,  522-5S6.     (April,  1918.) 

Dodd,  William  E.,  Statesmen  of  the  Old  South  or  from  Radir 
calism  to  Conservative  Revolt.     (N.  Y.,  1911.) 

Dodd,  William  E.,  The  Fight  for  the  Northwest,  1860. 
American  Historical  Review,  XVI.,  774-788.  (July, 
1911.) 

Donaldson,  Thomas,  The  Public  Domain,  etc.  (Washing- 
ton, 1884.) 

Du  Bois,  J.  T.,  and  Mathews,  G.  S.,  Galusha  A.  Grow:  The 
Father  of  the  Homestead  Law.     (Boston,  1917.) 

Edinburgh  Review,  LXXL,  617-644.  (July,  1840.)  Ar- 
ticle entitled  "New  Theory  of  Colonization." 

Ellis,  George,  The  Opening,  the  Use,  and  the  Future  of  our 
Domain  on  this  Continent,  etc.     (N.  Y.,  1887.) 

Emerick,  C.  F.,  The  Credit  System  and  the  Public  Domain. 
Publications  of  the  VanderbUt  Southern  History  So- 
ciety, No.  8.     (NashviUe,  Tenn.,  1899.) 

Fiske,  John,  Essays  Historical  and  Literary.  («  vols.,  N. 
Y.,  1908.)  I.,  817-861.  "Harrison,  Tyler  and  the 
Whig  Coalition." 

Flower,  Frank  A.,  History  of  the  Republican  Party,  etc. 
(Springfield,  His.,  1884.) 


S7t       The  PoUiical  H'utory  of  the  Public  Land* 


Ford,  Amelia  Clewley,  Colonial  Frecedentt  of  our  National 
Land  System  as  it  existed  in  1800.  Bulletin  of  the 
Uwversity  of  Wisconsin,  No.  85S.     (Madison,  1910.) 

Ford,  W.  C,  The  Campmgn  of  18 J^.  American  Anti- 
quarian Society,  Proceedings,  1909-1910.  New  Series, 
XX.,  106-126. 

Forney,  John  W.,  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  (N.  Y., 
1878.) 

Garnett,  R.,  Edward  Gibbon  Wakefield.  The  Colonixation 
of  South  Australia  and  New  Zealand.  (London, 
1898.) 

Garrison,  George  Pierce,  Westward  Extension,  1841-1850. 
(N.  Y.,  1906.) 

Greeley,  Horace,  and  Cleveland,  John  F.,  A  Political  Tetrt- 
Book  for  1860,  etc.     (N.  Y.,  1860.) 

Haney,  Lewis  Henry,  A  Congressional  History  of  Railways 
in  the  United  States  to  1850.  BuUetin  of  the  Univer- 
sUy  of  Wisconsin,  No.  Sll.    (April,  1908.) 

Haney,  Lewis  Henry,  A  Congressional  History  of  Railways 
in  the  United  States,  1860-1877.  BuUetin  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Wisconsin,  No.  842.     (Jan.,  1910.) 

Harper's  New  Monthly  Magasine,  LXXJ.,  741-746.  (Oct, 
1885.)     Anonymous  article,  "Our  Public  Land  Policy." 

Hart,  A.  B.,  Practical  Essays  on  Government.  (N.  Y., 
1898.)  Chapter  X.  "Public  Land  Policy  of  the 
United  States." 

Herriott,  F.  I.,  Iowa  and  Abraham  Lincoln,  etc.  (Des 
Moines,  Iowa,  1911-) 

Hill,  Robert  Tudor,  The  Public  Domain  and  Democracy, 
etc.     (N.  Y.,  1910.) 

Hunt,  Gaillard,  John  C.  Calhown.     (Phila.,  1908.) 

James,  Edmund  J.,  The  Origin  of  the  Land  Grant  Act  of 
1862.     (The  so-called    Morrill  Act.)     University  of 


VibUografkp 


nUnou  BuUetin,  Vol  VIH.,  No.  10.  (Nor.  7.  1910.) 
Jenkins,  John  S.,  The  Lift  of  John  Coldwdl  Colhotm.   '  (^- 

burn  Md  BuIFaIo,  l€ffO.) 
Jervey,  Theodore  D.,  Rohtri  Y.  Hayne  and  hii  Tintgt. 

(N.  Y.,  1909.) 
Johnson,  Allen,  Stephen  A.  Doug^,  A  SUidy  in  Ameriean 

Politica.     (N.  Y.,  1908.) 
Julian,  George  W.,  Railway  Influence  in  the  LawdOffUe. 

North  American  Review,  CXXXVI.,  S87-256.    (March, 

168S.) 
Julian,   George   W.,   The  Life   of  Joehua  R.    Giddingt. 

(Chicago,  189C.) 
Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  Darnel  Webster.     (Boston,  1888.) 
Lucas,  Sir  C.  P.,  Lord  Durham's  Report  on  the  Affairs  of 

British  North  America.     (S  vols.,  Oxford,  191S.) 
McKee,  Thomas  Hudson,  The  National  Cowoentions  and 

Platforms    of    all   PoUtical   Parties,   1789-1900,  etc. 

(Balto.,  1900.) 
McLaughlin,  A.  C,  Lewie  Cass.     (Rev.  ed.,  Boston,  1900.) 
McMaster,  John  Bach,  A  History  of  the  People  of  tib« 

Unitsd  States,  from  the  Revolution  to  the  CiwU  War. 

(8  vds.,  N.  Y.,  188S-1918.) 
>Ucy,  Jesse,  Institutional  Beginnings. in  a  Western '•State. 

Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  IL,  347-880.  (Balto.,  1884.) 
Meigs,  W.  M.,  The  Life  of  Thomas  Hart  Bmton.     PUU., 

1904.) 
Meyer,  Dr.  Rudolf,  HetmstAtten  und  andere  Wtrthaehaft- 

gestze    der    Vereinigten   Staaten   von   Amerika,    etc. 

(Berlin,  1888.) 
Middleton,  Thomas  J.,  Andrew  Johnson  and  the  Bomsestead 

Law.  Sewanee  Review,  XV.,  816-StO.  (Jdy,  1907.) 
Mills,  Arthur,  Systematic  Colonixation.  (London,  IMU.) 
Moore,  Frank,  Speeches  of  Andrew  Johewon,  etc     (Boston, 


174       Th4  PoUtieal  Hiitory  of  thg  PMie  Landt 


\i 


'  -1' 


1866.) 
NiU$*  Wgthly  Rtgiattr.     (Balto.,  1811-1849.) 
North  American  Review,  LVIII.,  109-157.     (Jan.,  1844.)— 

Article  on  '*Dcbts  of  the  States.** 
Orfleld,  M.  I.,  Federal  Land  Granti  to  the  Statee  with  epecki 

Reference  to  Minneeota.     (The  Uniyenity  of  Minne- 
sota Studies  in  the  Social  Sciences,  1915.) 
Onnsby,  R.  McKInley,  A  Hittory  of  the  Whig  Party,  «te. 

(Boston,  1859.) 
Paxson,  Frederic  L.,  The  RaUroad*  of  the  **Old  Northweet** 

Before  the  CivU  War.    Wisconsin  Academy  of  Sciences, 

Arts,    and    Letters,    Traneactione,    XVII.,    £48-274. 

(Oct.,  1912.) 
Pelzer,  Louis,  Augustue  Ctttar  Dodge.     (Iowa  City,  Iowa, 

1908.) 
Phillips,  Ulrich  Bonnell,  The  Life  of  Robert  Toombe.    (N. 

Y.,  1918.) 
PhiUips,  mrich  Bonnell,  The  Southern  Whigt,  I8S4.-I864. 

Turner  Etaaye,  208-229.     (N.  Y.,  1910.) 
RejmbUcan  Scrap  Book,  etc.     (Boston,  1856.) 
Rhodes,  J.  F.,  Hittory  of  the  United  Statea  from  the  Com- 

promiee  of  1860.     (7  vols.,  N.  Y.,  1898-1906.) 
Rhodes,  J.  F.,  Lecturea  on  the  American  CivU  War,  ate. 

(N.  Y.,  1918.) 
Rogers,  Joseph  M.,  The  True  Henry  Cloy.     (Phila.,  1904.) 
Sanborn,  John  Bell,  Congreaaional  Granta  of  Land  in  Aid 

of  RaUwaya.    Bulletin  of  the  Univeraity  of  Wiaconeim, 

No.  80.     (August,  1899.) 
Sanborn,  John  Bell,  Some  PeUtical  Aapeete  of  Homeetead 

Legialation.    American  Hiatorical  Review,  VI.,  19-87. 

(Oct.,  1900.) 
Sato,  Shofluke,  Hiatory  of  the  Land  Queation  in  the  United 

Statea.     Johna  Hopkma  Studiea,  IV.     (Balto.,  1886.) 


BOUograpkg 


trs 


Savage,  John,  Tht  Lift  amd  FmUIc  Strviett  of  Andrtm 
Johnton.     (N.  Y.,  1866.) 

Schouler,  Jaocim,  Hiaiory  of  iht  United  State*  of  America 
under  the  Constitution.     (ReTiicd  ed.,  N.  Y.) 

Schun,  Carl,  Henry  Clay,     (f  yob.,  Boaton,  1900.) 

Scott,  William  A.,  The  Repudiation  of  State  Debts,  ete. 
(N.  Y.,  1896.) 

Sering,  Max,  Die  landwirtheehaftUehe  KonkurreuM  Nord- 
amerikae  in  Oegenwart  und  Zukunft.  (Leipiig,  1887.) 

Shambaugh,  Benjamin  F.,  Constitution  and  Records  of  the 
Claim  Association  of  Johnson  County,  loma,  etc. 
(Iowa  City,  Iowa,  1894.) 

Shepard,  E.  M.,  Martin  Van  Buren.  (Rer.  cd.,  Boston, 
1900.) 

Smith,  Theodore  Clarke,  The  Liberty  and  Free  SoU  Parties 
in  the  Northwest.     (N.  y.,  1897.) 

Stanwood,  Edward,  A  History  of  the  Presidency.  (Bos- 
ton, 1898.) 

Sta1mmmm*s  Manual,  1789-1851.  (4  toIs.,  N.  Y.,  1847- 
1858.) 

Taussig,  F.  W.,  The  Tariff  History  of  the  VnUed  States. 
(5  ed^  N.  Y.,  1910.) 

Terry,  Benj.,  JDw  MeimsiMtten<resetM-Bewegung.  Deutsch- 
Amerikaniseke  OesehichtsWitter.  Jahrgang  f.  Heft 
2,  pp.  1-9.  (April,  19M) ;  Heft  8,  pp.  1-16.  (July, 
190t);  Heft  4,  pp.  1-11.  (Oct.,  190f);  Jahr- 
gang S,  Heft  S,  pp.  m-m.  (April,  1908))  Heft  8, 
pp.  1-11.     (July,  190t.) 

The  South  m  the  BuOding  of  the  NaMan.  (IS  toIs.,  Rich- 
mond. ) 

Tiffany,  Francis,  Li$e  of  Dorothea  Lyndc  Din.  (Boston, 
1890.) 


«M       Th«  PoUtieal  Bktt^  c0f  <1k$  PmbUe  Lmtd$ 


31win|Mon,  Jabim  Vf^tUU,  'FrpfitMe  FMdt  of  ImmtUgm- 

tion  j»  M0diav«A  Hiatorg.    AmfriMm  HUtorkA  Bt- 

witw,  XVIIL,  400-804.     (Apn),  1018.) 
Treat,  Payson  Jaekcon,  Th4  NmtiiMil  Ltmd  SyaUm,  .1786- 

1890.     (N.  Y.,il910.) 
Turner,  .Frederick  JacksoB*  U  S*ctUmM»m  im  Amitriea  Dp- 

htg  Awayf    Amtrican  Journal  of  Spdologff,  XIII., 
.661-610.    (Matd),  10080 
rrmmtr^HnimekJuktm,  UiMJof  Jkt.ihmWni.  .(N.  Y., 

1006.) 
Turner,  Frederick  Jacksoo,  Signiflcanct  of  tK*  FromHier  In 

American  Historjf.    Ameriotn  Hiiterical .  Aisoeiation, 

Report,  1806,  100-ft7. 
Turner,  Frederick  Jackson,  Social  Foreet  in  Ametican  Hie- 

toup,   American  Historical  Review,    XVI.,  JlTrftS. 

(Jan.,  1011.) 
United  Statet.    Monthly  Summary .  of  .Commerce  and  Fi- 
nance.   October,  1001.     Prepared  in  the  bureau  of 

.Statistic!,  Treasury  Department.     Colonial  Adminis- 
tration.    (Washington,  1001.) 
Vacher,  L.,  Le  Homettead  aiue  £tat$-Vni$.     (Paris,  1806.) 
Von  Hoist,  Dr.  H.,  The  ComtUmtional  and  ToUticaltlUtory 

of  the  United  States.     (Chicago,  18T6-180X.) 
Wakefield,  D.,  editor,  TTb^PiiMJc  Landt  a  Mine  of  WedUK 

etc.     CI^°<lon,  1841.) 
Wakefield,  Edward  Gibbon,  A  View  Of  the  Art  6f  Ceionwa- 

tiofi,  etc.     (London,  IMO.) 
Wak«fieM,    EdiranI    Gibbon,    En^nd   and    Amerioa.     A 

Comparison  of  the  Social  and  PMHeal  State  0f  Both 

Nations.     (N.  Y.,'1804.) 
Welling,  James  C,  State  Rights  Conflict  over  I^Mic^Lands. 

Ameriean  Historical  'Associatien,   Pmpees,   UL,  1411 

seq.     (1880.) 


BQMogrufkff 


wn 


WcUinf  ,  JuDM  C,  Th*  Umd  PoUHct  of  tht  Uidttd  StatM. 

(N.  Y.,  1888.) 
Wellington,  R.  O.,  Tht  PoUtical  and  StetkmtA  InfmtnM  of 

ikt  PMie  Lands,  18t8-184».    (Boston,  1914.) 
Wellington.  R.  O.,  Tht  Tariff  and  PubUe  Land*  from  18»8 

to  18SS.    Americftn  Hiatorical  AMOci»tion,  Rtpori, 

1911, 1.,  179-185. 
White,  Franeii  Harding,  Tlit  AdminUtration  of  tks  Gti^ 

irtd  Land  OfUt,  1819-1911.    Mm.  in  HAnrard  Li- 
brary.    (191i.) 
WiM,  Barton  H.,  The  Lift  of  Htnrp  A.  Witt,  1808-1876. 

(N.  Y.,  1899.) 


MICROCOPY  RESOIUTION  TfST  CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


lii    _ 


2.5 
2.2 


2.0 


liH|jj_ 


^    /APPLIED  IIVMGE 


'653  East   Main   Street 

(7'6)   482  -  0300  -  Phone 
(716)   288-  5989  -Fox 


INDEX 


Abolitionism,  114,  146  (note 
69),  154  »eq.,  17«  (note 
20),  175,  198  geq.-^ee  alio 
AntLolavery  agitation.  Free 
Soilers,  etc 
Act  of  January  S8,  1847,  90, 

179 
Act  of  March  28,  1858,  101, 

lOS 
Adams,  C.  F.,  186 
Adams,  J.  Q.,  hostiUty  to  Ty- 
ler,  51,   52,   88;   M.emo%r; 
258,  258 
Adams,  Stephen,  152,  158, 178 

(note  89) 
Alabama,  68,  69 
Aliens,   24,   25,   45,   89,   185, 
148,    149    seq.,    174    (note 
25),  175,  176,  199,  800,  801, 
202,  215. — See  alto   Immi- 
gration,   Native   Americans, 
etc 
Antirent  movement,  107,  184 
Antislavery  agitation,  114, 15S 

seq.,  249 
Arkansas,  157 

Augusta  (Ga.)   Chronicle  and 
"Sentineh  887 


Baltimore  American,  66 
Bankrupt  bill,  62,  68,  86,  87 
Barksdale,  Wm.,  810  (note  74) 
"Bambnmers,"  186,  189  (note 

89) 
Bell's  bill,  98  (note  81) 
Bell-Everett  papers,  817,  887 
Bell-Everett  ticket,  887 
Bennett's  bill,  98,  98 
Benton,  T.  H.,  advocates  pre- 
emption,     86;      introdaces 
gradaation  biU,  86, 186  seq.; 
Eastern  opposition  to  pre- 
emption bills,  86,  87;   op- 
poses   distribution,    88,    89, 
48;  opposes  cession,  84,  85; 
resolntions  (1889),  41;  ex- 
poses "hypocrisy"  of  Whigs 
(1840),   40,  41,  44;  intro- 
daces    "Log     Cabin     biU" 
(1840),  44,  45;  attempts  to 
amend     bounty     bills,     108 
(note  80);  views  on  gradu- 
ation, 127.— See  alto  Grad- 
uation, Pre-emption 
Berrien,  of  Georgia,  68 
Berrien's       amendment,       59 
(map),  61    (notes  60,  6l), 
66 


279 


280 


Index 


1*1 


BIBLIOGRAPHY,  251 
Border  States,  242,  248 
Boston  Atlas,  66,  67,  76 
Boston  Courier,  67)  76 
Bourne,  E.  G.,  History  of  Sur* 
plus  Revenue  of  1837,   28 
(note  27) 
Bovay,  H.  E.,  105 
Bnuuth,  L.  O.,  197 
Breckinridge,  J.  C,  198 
Breckinridge  papers,  217 
bright,  Jesse  D.,  208,  224 
Buchanan,  James,  opposes  ces- 
sion     (1887),      84;      votes 
against    distribution-pre- 
emption    bill     (1841),     60 
(note  60) ;  vetoes  homestead 
bill    (I860),   218   seq.;   on- 
popolarity  of  veto,  215-217; 
Bell-Everett'  and    Breckin- 
ridge^ papers   indorse   veto, 
217,   218;   attempt  to  pass 
bill  over  veto,  218  seq.;  veto 
in.campaigo  of'  I860,  280, 
281,    285;    postpones    land 
sales,    281,    282. — See    also 
Oampoign  of;  I860,  Andrew 
Johnson,  ete. 
Bnrlingame,  Ahson,  280 
.Butl«r,  B.  R,  186 

Calhoun,  John  C,  opposes  dis- 
tribution and  pre-emption, 
81-88;  desire  to  conciliate 
West,  82,  88  (note  87), 
150;  introduces  cession  bill 


(1887),  83,  84;  cession 
amendment  to  distribution 
bill  (1841),  47,  48;  corre- 
spondence of,  82,  252,  253. 
— See  also  Cession,  Distri- 
bution, etc. 

California,  211,  228  (note  12) 

Campaign  of  1840,  influence 
of,  88  seq.;  Democrats 
a^(^t  pre-en^tion^  88; 
c«rasive  tactics  of  Whigs,  88 
seq.;  importance  of  West, 
42,  48y  248. — See  aZ«o  Demr 
ocrats,  Distribution,  Harri- 
son, Pre-emption,  Tyler, 
Whigs,  West,  etc. 

Campaign  of  1844,  89,  90,  184 

Canpaign  of  1848,  90,  184 
seq. 

Campaign  of  1852,  98,  144, 
146-148,  222,  224 

Campaign  of  1856,  94,  95,^22, 
225 

Campaign  of  I860,  Republi- 
cans and  Buchanan's  veto, 
215  seq.;  importance  of 
Germans,  228  seq.;  impor- 
tance of  homestead  issue, 
228  seq.;  Buchanan's  veto, 
230,  231;  difficulties  of 
Democrats,  232  seq.,  237- 
239.— See  also  Bell-Everett, 
Douglas,  Germans,  Sdhurs, 
etc. 

Campbril's  Deposit  biU,  92 
(note  21) 


Canada,  land  policy  of,  com-j^CJtic0ff9.  Tribumtit.  176-  (iMket 
pared    with    that    of         &1), 

U.     S.,     108,     176     (note     Civil  War,  effect  of,  on. home- 
Si )  stead  bill,  240;  seq.,  2«4. 

Capital,  and  public  lands,  89,     Claim  Associations,  81  seq*,,  85, 
40,  108,  104,  123,  124,  189,  ggt,  lOO 


99 


162,  164,  880  (note  44) 

Carlile,  of  Virginia,  848 

Cass,  Lewis,  188,  189 

CaTanang^,.  of- Minnesota,  198 
(note) 

Cession  of  pablic  lands  to 
states,  Calhoun's  bill 
(1887),  S8,  84;  debate  on 
Calhoun's  bill,  84,  85;  sec- 
tional ddbate,  85-87 ;  amend- 
ment to  distribution  bill 
(1841),  47;  Walker's  bill, 
141  (note  41);  C.  C.  Clay's 
amendments,  801,  808; 
amendmoit  to  homestead 
bill,  805;  influence  of,  248. 
— See  alto  Calhoun,  Distri- 
buticm,  etc. 

Charleston  conventiony  808, 
805,  814,  888 

Charlettou  Courier,  52,  818, 
814 

Charlettou  Mtrcwry,  dtfnoonces 
hmnestead,  158,  154,  155, 
156;  comment  on  Democrat- 
ic situation  (I860),  884, 
885;  importance  of,  858 

Chase,  S.  P.,  186^  170,  174 
(note  25),  176  (note.  27), 
176^  177,  187 


Claim  j.uB^rs>.88,  88 

Clayj  Olcmeat  C,  801,  808. 

Clwf,  Henry,  reii^rt-oBdistri>- 
batioa.  (18S8),  87i  8»i  op* 
poses  ^p.te<«mf(tion^  4A;  }pil- 
ousy  of  Tyler,,  58,  79/,  84 
8«q-.];  rcsohitioDB  on-distribn- 
tioa,  55;  bill  iatsodiMed,  S6\ 
resolutions  repealing  80.% 
provisoy.  74{  camp^igt.  of. 
1844,  89»  90,  184(  effeotvof 
land  polkyT  0%  95,  96i,  184; 
corre^midenee  of,  8J[S>  858. 
— See  oisa  Benton,  cCalhoan, 
DistribtttioBy  etc. 

Clay  Whigg,  89,  49»^,  5«,^,' 
61,  75,  l6,MyM.-So»alto 
Distribution,  Whigs,  et«i^ 

Clayton,  of^  DelMMurCy.  175, 
176 

Clingmaa;  of  >  North  >  Caealina, 
801 

Cobb,  W.  R.  W.,  admeates 
graduation^  lS8,r  186:- seq.; 
introduces  homestead;  bill, 
l^O.T-See^  oiJOw  Qraduatievy 
Greeley,  etc. 

Colfax,,  Scfanyletj  comakibtee 
rep|Wt^of,  on  homeetAadibillj 
811  seqi, 


I: 


.?' 


IX 


i'  , 


S8S 


IntUm 


!»1 


Collamer,  Jacob,  committee  re- 
port of,  on  graduation,  180 
(note  04) 
Colutnhut    (Miss.)    Demoerai, 

155 
Commerford,  John,  105,  146 
Commissioner  of  General  Land 

Office,  Report  of,  l64,  251 
Compromise  of  1850,  141,  148 
Compromise    Tariff   of    1888, 
58,  54,  55,  58  seq.  (maps), 
60,  61   (notes  60,  61),  76, 
77,    W.—See    alto    Tariff, 
Twenty    per    cent,    proviso, 
etc. 
Congress,    domination    of,   hj 
South,  182;  complexion  of, 
1858-54,  169,  174;  1859-60, 
195 ;  effect  of  withdrawal  of 
Southern  members,  240 
Congressional  Documents,  251 
"Congressional  Executive  Com- 
mittee,"   Circular    of,    228, 
224 
Congreiiional    Globe,    impor- 
tance of,  for  study  of  public 
lands,  118,  251,  252 
Connecticut,  71 

Constitution,   the,   and   public 
lands,  28,  80,  81,  125,  126, 
156,  157 
"Cotton  Kingdom,"  128,  182, 

208 
Cotton  planters,  80,  81 
Crittenden,    J.    J.,    introduces 
distribution  amendment 


(1841),  46  seq.;  correspond- 
ence of,  252,  258 
Cuban  purchase  bill,  194,  199 
Cumbai^,  of  Indiana,  119 

Davis,  Jefferson,  favors  Pa- 
cific railway,  125,  126; 
votes    for    homestead    bill, 

209 
Dawson,  of  Georgia,  141,  170; 

condemns  Hunter's  bill,  185 
Democratic  papers,  52,  54,  81, 

227 
Democrats,    the,    adopt    pre- 
emption (1840),  88;  tactics 
of,  in  campaign  of  1840  and 
effect,  40-48;  oppose  distri- 
bution bill  (1841),  58  seq.; 
Southern  Democrats  attempt 
to   repeal   distribution   law, 
68  seq.;  condemn  distribu- 
tion   (1852),    147;    divided 
on  public  land  question,  l69 
(note  4),  202,  208;  attitude 
of    Germans    toward,    225 
seq.;     campaign    of     I860, 
281    seq.;    effect  of   public 
land  policy  on  party,  289. — 
See  alto  Douglas,  Campaign 
of  1860,  Distribution,  etc. 

"Der  Arbeiterbund,"  226 

Der  Volkt-Trihun,  118 

Devyr,  Thos.  A.,  105 

Distribution  of  proceeds  of 
sales  of  public  lands,  rela- 
tion to  revenue,  87*  Clay's 


Indtm 


tepoitf  Vtf  S8;  oppoied  by 
Benton,  28,  S9;  favored  by 
protectioniitt,  29>  SO;  op- 
posed by  Eastern  Dem- 
ocrats, 29;  advantage  over 
pre-emption,  80;  attitude  of 
South,  80,  81,  49  seq.;  op- 
posed by  Calhoun,  81,  M; 
favored  by  Clay  Whigs,  41 ; 
Crittenden's  amendment,  46- 
48;  Tyler's  views,  49,  08 
seq.;  combined  with  pre- 
emption (1841),  57  seq.; 
struggle  over  repeal  of  dis- 
tribution law,  74  seq.;  vote 
on  separate  distribution  bill 
(1842),  88  (map) ;  effect  of, 
on  Whig  party,  86,  87;  cam- 
paigns of  1844  and  1848, 
88-90;  revival  after  1850,91 
seq.;  relation  to  homestead 
and  land  grants,  67,  68,  91 ; 
campaign  of  1852,  98,  147; 
Virginia,  Tennessee,  and 
North  Carolina,  98-95 ;  cam- 
paign of  1856,  94,  95;  im- 
portance of,  in  U.  S.  history, 
95,  ^',  advocated  by  Gree- 
ley, 111;  Dayton's  amend- 
ment to  Illinois  Central  bill, 
141  (note  89) ;  Whig  plank 
(1852),147.— <See  eUo  Cam- 
paign of  1840,  Clay,  Reve- 
nue, Surplus,  Tariff,  etc. 
Distribution,  pre-emption  ac^ 
Sept  4,  1841,  55  seq.;  posi- 


tion of  Western  Whigs  on, 
56;  passes  House,  57; 
struggle  in  Senate,  58  seq.; 
votes  on  tariff  amendments, 
59  seq.  (maps) ;  results  of 
adoption  of  20  per  cent  pro- 
viso, 62 ;  log  rolling  on  bank- 
rupt bill,  62,  6Si  Senate 
vote  on.  68  (map),  64;  pro- 
visions of,  64,  65 ;  sentiment 
of  country  on,  66  seq.;  at- 
tempts to  repeal  distribution, 
68  seq.;  states  refuse  land 
fund,  68  seq.;  agitation  for 
amendments,  72;  amend- 
ments 1858,  1854,  and  1862, 
72  (note  81) ;  repeal  of  pre- 
emption law  (1891),  7S 
(note  81);  suspension  of 
distribution,  78  seq. — See 
alto  Compromise  Tariff,  Ty- 
ler, etc. 

Dix,  Dorothea  L.,  agitates  in- 
digent insane  bill,  177,  178 

Dodd,  Wm.  E.,  190  (note  1), 
191  (note  5) 

Dodge,  of  Iowa,  178  (note 
20) 

Doolittle,  of  Wisconsin,  194, 
195,  198,  199,  202 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  favors 
railway  land  grants,  124; 
homestead  bill  of,  141  (note 
42);  attitude  toward  aliens, 
174  (note  25);  sentiments 
on  homestead  bill,  184,  185, 


,■4 


'^ 


^i 


r 


19«»  800,  soft;  iatrodooes 
liberal  amendnc&k  to  hMae- 
staad-biU,  S07,  203;  home- 
stead position  criticixed 
(1859),  224;  in  campaign 
of  I860,  229,  280,  284  seq. 
— Set  alto  Campaign  of 
I860,  Homestead,  etc. 
Dubuque  (Iowa)  HerM,  217, 
288,228 

East,  thtj  attitude  of,  toward 
p«blic  lands,  28    (note  2), 
28 )  Western  criticism  of,  28, 
24;  opposed  to  pre-en^tien, 
26,  27;  sentiment  ol,  oa  dis- 
tribution, 29,  80;  opinion  of, 
on     distributioorpre-emption 
lawi  67  seq.;  sentiment  of, 
OB  graduation,  128;  attitude 
toward  homestead,  l6l  seq., 
229    seq. — See    alto    New 
England,  South,  West,  La-* 
bor,  etc. 
Edwards,  Governor,  86 
Evans,  George  Henry,  organ- 
ises   labor,    105;    editor   of 
Working    Man't    Advocate, 
105;  his  land  theory,   105^ 
106,  110;  National  Reform 
Association^  107  seq.;  influ- 
ence on  Jackson,   114;  po- 
litical    activity,     184.— 5«« 
alto  Labor,  Loco^Foco^  Na- 
tional   Reform    Association, 
etc 


Fausty.  GMm«»«  Eimnemiy,  285 

(notes). 
F'ekh>.of  Michigan,  rq«Mrton 

homestead,  141-148;  s^sech, 

165;  defeat  of,  attribated>to 

(^pfMsitien     tO'    beoiestead, 

l6fi  (note  4ft). 
Eillmofe,    MiUard,    intcoduees 

"Little  Tariff,"  77 
Florida,  1&7- 
Florida  OflcapatioB<  bill,   115, 

116 
Foot's     resoltttiex   (1880-80), 

82  (note  88) 
Ford,  A..C.,  106,107 
Fo«rierisra,.106 
I\ree    Sailers,,  opppee   raiLway 

land     grantoi,    128;     adept 

homestead     p^ank     (1848), 

1 86  seq. ;  dissaiisf  action :  of 
Land  Reformers  with  .plank, 

187  seq.;  homestead  p^ank 
(1852^),  146,  1474  aUiance 
with,  labor  element^,  174; 
homestead  plaak.  attracts 
Germane;  9A&. — 5e«.  alto 
Abolitienbm,-  AntislaTery, 
etA 

FreliBghuysea, .  Theodore,^  89 
Fremont, .  Joha.  C,  22a 

Gaxrison.W.  L.,  188 

Georgia,  ,49^  68^  69' 

Germans,  the)  favor  .homestead, 
118,  202,,  208;  jpin  Bepisbr 
liean.p^rty,   151*  152;  hos- 


tt85 


itHty  of  SMrth  ieward,  175; 

•  appealed  to,  an  homcrtead 
iuae  in  elections,  221,  224 
'■eq. ;  ^attitude  tanrard  Demo- 
cratic, BepoUican,  and 'Na- 
tive 'Ameriaan  parties,  .  224 
iseq.— ^See'tfbo  'Aliens,  'Cam- 
paign' of  la&O,  Schurs,  etc. 

Godwin,  rPaske,  1105 

Gradoatian  of  'the  .prices    of 

ttlw  tpnblic  liaais,    Benton's 

iirst    bi'lil    (1886),    26; 

{VSr«llker's»«e86latkw,  S6;  re- 

iakion- to  JMBsestead-iaw,  126 

iseq:;fientaik>s  adveeacy  of, 

.  126,    37;  '/cuUiii«"  the  pnb- 

ciicjlarids,  127  >8eq.; '.bills  in 

GongrcM,   :l!27,    181;  .sec- 

'^tianal  Tiews   on,   127  (leq.; 

eritieism  .4if,   ISO,  ,181 ;  in- 

tcreaaing  iaqpoetanoe-^f ,  >  1 86 ; 

<  Cobb's  UU  «siactcd  into  law 

(1854),    186,   a!87;  iprovi- 

•  sisns  of  law,  187;  ifaands 
nnder,  196,  IW 

"Gieat  -TarlT'  hiU,  82,  84, 
185 

Greeley,  ^Hoiaee, 'Western  trip 
(>8«7),  90,  100;  favors 
viand  tlimitation,  110  (note 
i46) ;  ^oqaooses  land  reform, 
.'111  >scq. ;  idSneaee < of  Nen> 
■York  :TribmHe,  114;  opposes 
zgas^  ^tofsazlwBjs,  JSS;  de- 
snonaces  .  gnlioatiBn,  '128- 
wiao,    188,    189;  rboMMtead 


fUlI  (1848),  .140;  jtee  of 
tract  for  hoaealeiid,  144 
(nofte  40) ;  favots  indigent 
insane  bUl,  188  (note  75); 
-comment  on  homestead  is- 
sue in  I860,  S84  (note  50), 
iSS.—See  alto  New  .York 
Tribune 

Grimes,  Janes  vW.,  £05,  ^^06, 
/221 

G«>w,;Ga]iuha  A.,   102,  170, 

195,    196,  .810    (Mte   74); 

Glow's    bill    Biii    Daiwson's 

tcompared,     170     (nale    7); 

(Givw's   bill  i«nd    Jofaaaon's 

•eonpared,  197,  108 ;  Grow's 

'  bill  'reserving.  lands  for-  set- 

tto»,  802,219  (nap),  «20, 

axt ;  luniestesid  speedies  in 

rpbBfcieal     campiigna,     222, 

'.iMO;    speeeh    in   '.Congress 

41862),  840,!441 

Gwin,  of^Califeraia,  ITO,  178 
(note  «0),  208 

(Hale,.  Jobn :  P.,  1«7,  155  (note 

15),il68 
<Haiiiki,  HMiaihiil,  200,-986 
iHan^,iL.>.H.,<-an(Kiatkn  be- 
tnrcen  Miomestead   and  land 
>graiKt8,:t22  (note  17) 
cHarlan,iJame8,  204,:dif(9  '^ote 

n67),  :M2 
fHsnoBBSon,  rof  Xoafcriima,  65 
(iiote<78) 


£86 


Initm 


Hanrifon,  W.  H.,  on  pablle 
land  qaestion,  89;  calls  spe- 
cial session  of  Congress,  51 ; 
effect  of  death  of,  51,  5S, 
87.—See  alto  Clay,  Tyler 

Henderson,  of  Mississippi,  62, 
68 

Henn,  of  Iowa,  170 

Homestead,  relation  to  distri- 
bution, 67,  68;  relation  to 
land  grants,  91>  IS2  seq.; 
necessity  of,  revealed  in 
West,  98  seq.;  inflnence  of 
labor  movement,  108  seq.; 
origin  of  homestead  doctrine, 
106,  107;  work  of  National 
Reform  Association,  107 
seq.,  146,  147;  influence  of 
Greeley,  III  seq.;  influence 
of  Germans,  118;  ueginning 
of  homestead  legislation, 
115  seq.;  campaign  of  1848, 
185  seq.;  use  of  term  "home- 
stead" in  Congress,  142 
(note  42);  campaign  of 
1856,  146-148;  hostility  of 
South  to,  114,  158  seq.;  An- 
drew Johnson's  agitation 
for,  159  seq.;  Eastern  atti- 
tude, 16I  seq.;  Western  at- 
titude, 165-167;  in  state 
elections,  221  seq.;  cam- 
paign of  1856,  222;  German 
demand  for,  224  seq.;  cam- 
paign of  I860,  228  seq. 

Homestead  legislation.  South- 


em  opposition,  114;  fmrotti 
by  Jackson,  114,  115;  Flor- 
ida Occupation  and  Oregon 
biUs,  115,  116;  first  resolu- 
tion, 116;  first  petiton,  116; 
first     measure,     11 6,     117; 
"father  of  homestead  bill," 
116,  117;  bills  of  McConnell 
and  A.  Johnson,  117;  effect 
of    military    bounties,    119 
seq.;  relation  to  graduation, 
126  seq.;  Greeley's  and  A. 
Johnson's    bills,    140,    141; 
report  of  Senate  committee, 
141-148;  bills  (1850),  141, 
142     (note    44);    Congress 
(1852),    144,    145;   connec- 
tion  with   Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,     168     seq.;     Congress 
(1858-54),  169  acq.;  effect 
of  indigent  insane  bill,  149, 
169,  175,  177  seq.;  Hunter's 
substitute,   180  seq.;  passes 
House  (1859),  but  fails  in 
Senate,  198;  effect  of  Cuba 
bill,   194,   195;  Grow's  bill 
passes  House   (I860),  195- 
197  (map);  course  in  Sen- 
ate,   197   seq.;   Senate   and 
House  bills  compared,  205, 
212;  new  bill  passes  Senate 
but  rejected  by  House,  209 
210   seq.;    conference   com- 
mittees, SIO  seq.;  concurred 
in    by    both    Houses,    218 
Buchanan's  veto,  218  seq 


•» 


JmKm 


tt7 


bomeitead  kw  (186t),  84f 

Mq. 
Hoiut  Jounuda,  851 
HooM      of      RepretenUtiTes, 

FUei  of,  S51 
Hunter,  R.  M.  T.,  180  teq. 
Hanter'i    snbttitate    bill,    180 

Mq. 

Illinoii,  86,  71,  180,  181,  180 

Illinoifl  Central  Railwaj  land 
grant  bill,  141 

Immigration,  and  land  ques- 
tion, 84,  85,  108,  105  seq., 
185,  150  leq.,  174  teq.,  849. 
— Set  also  Aliens,  Native 
American,  etc. 

Indiana,  180,  150 

Indigent  insane  bill,  145,  169, 
175,  177  seq. — See  alto 
Pierce 

Internal  improvements,  89, 
80,  45,  94,  848 

Iowa,  150,  881,  888,  881 

Irish  vote,  189,  884,  885,  889 
(note  87) 

Jackson,  Andrew,  recommends 
distribution  of  surplus,  87; 
"homestead  message,"  114, 
115 

Johnson,  Andrew,  "father  of 
homestead  bill,"  116,  117; 
opposes  Pacific  railway  bill, 
185;  homestead  sproches, 
188,    159-161,    199:   home- 


stead bills  (1846,  1848), 
184,  140,  148  (note  44); 
hostility  to  slaveocracj,  158 
■eq-,  194,  809;  Johnson's 
aiid  Orow's  bills  (I860) 
compared,  197,  198;  reports 
new  bill,  808  seq.;  speech 
on  Buchanan's  veto,  818, 
819;  evidence  of  popular- 
ity in  West,  884,  888  seq.; 
correspondence  o  f ,  858, 
858 

Johnson,  R.  W.,  sounds  key- 
note of  Southern  opposition 
to  homestead,  171,  178; 
moves  to  report  new  home- 
■tead  bUl  (I860),  808,  804; 
opposes  House  bill,  810;  on 
Buchanan's  veto,  818 

Johnson,  W.  C,  reports  distri- 
bution bill,  57;  defeated  in 
Maryland,  70;  author  of 
"National  Stock  Proposi- 
tion," 88,  89  (note  5) 

Julian,  George  W.,  criticism  of 
homestead  law,  844,  845 


Kansas,  811 

Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  and 
homestead  bill,  168  seq.; 
turns  Germans  from  Demo- 
cratic party,  885 

Kennedy,  of  Indiana,  19,  80 

King's  amendment  (1841),  59 
(map),  60  (note  6),  6l  (note 
61) 


imdtM 


'Kaew-noUiing  partj.  Set  Na- 
tive 'Amerioati  party 

'.RnoMviUe  (iTcim.)  Beghter, 
AM 

Labor, -w^ge*  of,  in  rdation  to 

pobliclanis,  85,  168,  176; 

;faven  'homcatead,  108  ceq., 

(840;  Hae  af  tiadea  anions, 

ate.,  :1(M;   woik  of   Evana, 

M05  aaq.,  IMaaq.;  alliance 

with  Free  Soilers,  174.-^5ee 

■Tolto  tEvans,    Oreelay,    Na- 

^tiaMal>R«f«nn  Aaiociation 

lund. grants) to  atatcs,  98,  98, 
'08,  126  (note  89),  177  teq. 

Land  limitation  morement,  110 
(note  46) 

Land  petittoaa,  108^110,  118 
(note  «9),  116,  184  (note 
i86),  t44,  164,  287  (note 
»4),  881 

Land  !  saks,  48,  28,  29,  88 
(note  8),  98,  99,  281,  888, 
.847 

Land  warrants.  iSce  Military 
land  bounties.  Speculators, 
etc. 

.I^ne,  Joseph,  808,  287 

Latham,  of  California,  802, 
.208 

Lawrence,  DeWitt  C,  188, 
189 

Letcher,  of  Virginia,  171 

Liberty. league  (IMS),  186 

Liber^  puty,  185 


Lincoln,  Abraham,  888,  289, 
888,  889 

Linn,  of  Missouri,  speech  on 
cession,  85;  introduces  Ore- 
gon bill,  115  (note  5) 

"LitUe  TariflF"  bill,  77,  78 
(map),  79  ieq. 

Loco-Foco  party,  104,  105, 
158  (note  88),  848 

Log  Ctbm,  The,  111 

Log  R^ing,  68,  119,  180,  188 
(note  17),  128  (note  4S), 
188,  184,  141 

Lord  Duriuun's  Report,  247 

Louisiana,  ,80,  81,  65  (note 
78),  167 

LoTcjoy,  of  Illkiais,  196,  197, 
210,  288 

Lyon,  of  Michigan,  22 

Maduonian,  The,  defends  Ty- 
ler, 75  (note  12),  77  (note 
28) 

Maine,  70 

Mangum,  of  North  Carolina, 
25 

MAPS:  Senate  vote  on  cession 
(1841),  47;  Senate  vote  on 
Kng's  and  Berrien'a  usend- 
ments  (I84I),  59;  Senate 
vote  on  distribution-prei-emp- 
tion  bill  (1841),  68;  Sen- 
ate vote  oo  "Little  Tariff" 
(1841),  78;  Senate  vote  on 
distribution  bill  (1842),  88; 
'House  'Vote  :on  i homestead 


/imIm 


bUl  (I860),  196;  Senate 
Tote  on  Wkde't  motion  to 
rabttitnte  Hoqm  homeatead 
bill  for  Senate  bill  (I860), 
S08;  Hocse  vote  on  Grow's 
bill  reierring  landa  for  aei- 
tlen  (1860),  SIQ 

Maryland,  70 

MeConnell,  Felix  Omndy, 
homestead  bill  of,  117,  184 

Maaon,  of  Virginia,  identifies 
abolition  and  homeatead,  155 
(note  15),  199 

Maaqnerier,  Lewia,  105,  146 

Massachosetts,  SS6,  880 

Mexican  War,  effect  of,  on 
pre-emption  law,  65  (note 
78);  effect  of,  on  distribu- 
tion, 90,  248 ;  increases  mili- 
tary boonties,  118, 119,  121; 
effect  of,  on  homestead,  249 

Military  land  bounties.  West- 
em  opposition  to,  97,  101 
seq.,  118,  120;  act  of  March 
22,  1852,  101;  Benton'a 
amendmenta,  102  (note  20) ; 
great  increaae  of,  after 
Mexican  War,  118,  119;  ef- 
fect of,  on  land  legialation, 
119  seq.,  169>  174,  249; 
bounty  laws,  119;  effect  of 
Civil  War  on,  241,  848 

Ming,  Alex.,  105 

MinnesoU,  100,  102,  150,  l66, 
167,  206,  811,  222,  887, 
881,  888 


Mississippi,  68,  60 

Missouri,  157 

Missouri     Compromise,     171, 

175 
Mitiouri  Repnhliean,  178  (note 

«7) 
Morrill  abt  (1868),  844  (notl 

IP) 

NathvUlt  Union  and  AmeriF- 
can,  comment  on  veto  of  in- 
digent insane  bill,  179  (note 
41);  comment  on  Anwew 
Johnson,  888,  884 

National  Induatrial  Congreas, 
185  aeq.,  146 

National  Intelligeneer,  47,  48, 
58,  68,  81 

National  Reform  Aaaodation, 
107  aeq.;  circulates  home- 
atead  petitiona,  108-110;  op- 
poaea  granta  to  railways, 
128;  political  activity  of, 
184  aeq.;  refnae  to  accept 
Van  Buren'a  land  policy 
(1848),  187  acq.;  campaign 
of  1852,  146,  147;  decline 
of,  147;  influence  of,  158 
(note  22). — See  al$o  Evans, 
Free  Soilers,  Greeley,  etc 

"National  Stodc  Proposition," 
88,  89 

Native  American  party,  ea- 
pooses  distribution,  91,  9', 
94,  99;  opposes  honeatead, 
174,  192;  attitude  of  Ger- 


ij 


tM 


Indf* 


i 


5 


mans  toward,  8S7' — Set  alto 
Aliens,  Germans,  eta 

"Native  Amerieaas,"  effect  of, 
on  Republican  party,  225, 
XSbD 

Nebraska  Territory,  211,  232 

New  England,  26,  27t  8S,  111, 
100  seq.,  l6l  seq.,  S80.«— 5e« 
a2«o  East 

Neir  Haaapshire,  70 

Ntn  OHeam  Bte^  Si 

New  Orlean*  Pieayvm,  150, 
1B7 

Newspapers,  inflnenee  of,  on 
pnUic  land  legislation,  184, 
135,  158,  228  (nate  83), 
9.SB,  2S9;  importance  of,  for 
stndy  of  land  queatian,  252 

New^  York,  70 

New  York  Courier  ana  En- 
quirer, 53,  54 

New  York  Evening  Ewprett, 
225 

New  York  Globe,  189 

New  York  Hendd,  168,  104 

New  York  Mirror,  165 

New  Yxtrk  "Prihutu,  ridicnles 
Democratic  plank  (1852), 
9^  147;  advocates  homestead 
law.  111  seq^  184,  135,  189; 
criticixes  hoocstead  bill 
(I860),  210,  213;  inflttence 
of,  118,  118,  287,  2B«.— 
See  alto  Qwtlej' 

New  York  Worid,  281 

Niohdbon,  A;  O.  P.,  200 


Niles,  of  Conneetieat,  84 
North  CaroUna,  08,  94,  9« 
North  CaraUna  Standard,  214 
Nowell,   of  Michigan,  report 
of,  on  cession>  84  (note  48) 

Ohio,  180 

Ohio  Enabling  act'  (1802)>  88 
(note  39) 

Oregon,  115,  211 

Oregon  UU,  Linn's  blU 
(184»),  115,  116,  141;  en- 
acted into  law  (1850),  143, 
144;  criticism  of,  148,  144, 
166,  167 

Pacific  raUwaj,  124,  126,  169, 
170  (note  II),  178  (note 
20) 

Panic  of  1887,  87,  248 

Panic  of  1857,  281 

Pazson,  F.  L.,  108,  151  (note 

7) 
Pennsylvania,  71,  229 
Peoria    (Ills.)     Regiiter    and 

North-weeiem  Qatetieer^  76 
Pkiladelphio  DaUg  Sun^  189 
PhUodel^ia    Enquirer,     1 64, 

165 
Pierce,    Franklin,    146,    147, 

175i  177  seq. 
Pioneers,  20,  21,  72,  9S,  99, 

114,    115,    123,    129,    180, 

165 
Polk,  James  K.,  128^  18* 
PoHtmouth   (Va.)   Qlohti  188 


^■« 


Mka 


Pre-enqrtjon,  oppeatd  by  Bmnt, 
24,  25,  86;  bcghming  of, 
S5;  first  geotml  proipcctiTV 
kw  (IMO),  £6;  Benton^* 
advocacy  of,  26;  adopted  by 
Democrats  (1840),  M;  act 
of  1888  extended  (1840), 
41,  48;  BaiCen's  "Log  Cabin 
bUI,"  44,  45,  48;  act  of 
1 841,  44  seq. ;  cookhined  with 
distributien  (1841),  57  icq.; 
amcadnuats  to  dbttibation 
law,  72  (note  81);  law  re- 
pealed (1891),  72  (orte 
81)  ;  defects  of  l»w,  98  seq., 
126,  127.—  See  aito  Ben- 
ton, Campaign  of  1840, 
DistribotiMi,  East,  West, 
etc. 

Preston,  df  North  Carolina, 
95,  96 

Prohibitieaists,  225 

Public  lands,  key  to  the  ids- 
tory  of,  19;  importance  of, 
in  West,  80,  24«,  249;  atti- 
tnde  of  West  toward,  20 
seq.;  sentiment  in  East,  42 
(note  8),  28^2»,  849;  con- 
neetion  with  immigration, 
24,  25,  249;  effect  of,  on  la- 
bor, 25;  connection  of,  with 
distribution,  of  snr^os,  27; 
influence  of,  in  dection  of 
1840,  88  seq.;  inflnenee  of, 
on  Whig  party,  86,  87; 
speculation  in,  100;  log  roU- 


1n§,  141;  tiSMmated'^cottrof, 
l64;>inflMace  of,  on  ilavtry 
contiweny,  IfS,  i69i  tf- 
feet  of,  on  DcnocrAtic 
V^-ty,  l€9  (note  4),  ■289; 
ioAMBoe  of,  on  Amcrioan 
history,  246  Kqr—See  tim 
Campaigns,  Clay,  Deaglas, 
East,  South,  West,  etc 
Pngh,  of  Ohio,  fOO,  202,  806 

Aailway  lasid  grants,  «dTOoaoy 
of,  by  RepubUeaos,<91;  «t- 
titdde  of  >W«st  towwd,  97, 
98;  TclatisB  to  military 
bsvnties,  <120,  141;  relation 
>to  hOTieiitead,  182. seq.,  141, 
174,  175,  249;  reUtion  to 
Kanaas-Ncbradia  bill,  ItfS, 
169 

Repnbliean  oonventaon  (1860), 
202,  228,  229 

B^Mbbcan' party,  ^1;  kadcra 
of,  blame  South  for  ^feat 
•fhenestead,  185;  efforts  of 
leaders'«f,  in  Senate,  to  ae- 
vnre  liberal  law,  198,  201, 
204-206,  808,  209;  makes 
issoe  of  'Buchanan's  veto, 
218  acq.;  sincerity  of  vwtes 
^f,'0o  Crow's. bill  xeservfaig 
lands  for  settkrs,  220;  Ap- 
propriates hoaeatead  issne 
in  state  and  ■atasMl  eam- 
paigns,  221  Mq.;  attitttle  of 
Oermaas   toward,  895  oeq. 


S9f 


Indew 


rs 


1 


See  alio  Aliens,  Douglas, 
Native  Americans,  etc. 
Revenue,  and  public  lands,  9,1, 
45,  49,  78  (note  8),  83,  86, 
88,  89,  91,  179,  240,  242.— 
See  alto  Surplus,  Tariff,  etc. 
Rhodes,  James  F.,  112,  113, 
168,  174  (note  28),  224, 
288 

Rice,  of  Minnesota,  194,  202, 
206,  207,  208 

Richardson's  Metiaget  and 
Papert,  251 

Richmond  Enquirer,  favors 
Hunter's  substitute,  182; 
urges  alliance  with  North- 
west, 190,  191;  importance 
of,  252 

Richmond  Examiner,  188,  184 

Richmond  Whig,  50,  5S,  76 

Rives,  W.  C,  49,  50,  84,  89 

I 

St.  Anthony  (Minn.)  Exprett, 
100,  102 

St.  Paul  (Minn.)  Timee,  de- 
nounces Southern  Demo- 
crats, 212,  218;  comment  on 
Buchanan's  veto,  216 

Sanborn,  J.  B.,  on  land  grants 
to  railways,   122   (note  17) 

Sato's  Hittory  of  Land  Quet- 
tion,  26  (note  20) 

Scandinavians,  the,  effect  of, 
on  homestead,  118 

Schun,  Carl,  homestead 
speeches    in    political    cam- 


paigns, 222,  228,  229;  cor- 
respondence of,  252,  258 

Scott,  Winfield,  146 

Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Re- 
ports of,  251 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Re- 
ports of,  251 

Senate,  the,  balance  of  power 
in,  held  by  Southern  Whigs, 
49,  56;  struggle  in,  over  20 
per  cent,  proviso,  58  seq.; 
controlled  by  interests  hos- 
tile to  homestead,  141-148, 
174,  175 

Senate  Journals,  251 

Sevier,  of  Arkansas,  28,  24, 
44,  45 

Seward,  W.  H.,  169,  174  (note 
25),  175,  176 

Sherman,  John,  280 

Sibley,  Governor,  281,  282 

Slave-holders,  oppose  home- 
stead, 148;  hostility  of,  to- 
ward Andrew  Johnson,  l6l ; 
influence  of,  in  Senate,  174. 
— See  alto  Senate,  South, 
etc. 

Smith,  Gerritt,  opposes  railway 
land  grants,  124;  nomi- 
nated by  liberty  party,  185, 
186 

Smith,  Ransom,  105 

Smith,  Robert,  homestead  res- 
olution of,  116 

Sociale  Republik,  118,  226, 
227 


Indem 


m 


Socialism,  247 

South,  the,  opposes  pre-emp- 
tion, 24,  25,  96',  attitude  to- 
ward distribution,  90,  81, 
41 ;  sentiment  on  cession,  96  i 
attitude  toward  distribution- 
pre-emption  law,  67  seq.; 
opposition  to  homestead, 
114,  198,  209,  210;  senti- 
ment on  railway  land  grants, 
125  seq.;  attitude  toward 
graduation,  127,  128; 
strength  of,  in  Congress, 
182;  desire  of,  to  conciliate 
West,  96y  150,  161,  174, 
190  seq.;  relative  slow 
growth  of  population,  149 
seq.;  attitude  toward  home- 
stead, 114,  154  seq.,  190 
seq.;  connects  homestead 
with  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
171  seq.;  favors  Hunter's 
substitute,  182-185 

South  Carolina,  68 

South  in  the  Building  of  the 
Nation,  149  (note  2) 

Southern  Whigs,  41,  49,  60, 
60,  67,  84  seq. — See  alto 
Distribution,  Tariff,  Twen- 
ty per  cent  proviso.  South, 
etc. 

Speculators,  22,  41,  72,  92, 
98,  98,  100,  101,  119,  120, 
174,  178 

Squatters,  21  seq.,  25,  106, 
107,  248,  249 


State  debts,  28,  29,  81,  99,  41, 
49,  50,  248 

State  elections,  homestead  is- 
sue in,  221  seq. 

State  rights,  and  land  ques- 
tion, 28,  29,  81  seq. 

Statute*  at  Large,  251. 

Stephens,  Alexander   H.,  288 

Strove,  Gustav,  227 

Stuart,  of  Michigan,  181 

Sumner,  Charles,  174  (note 
25) 

Surplus,  effect  of,  on  land  pol- 
icy, 27,  86,  91,  92,  247,  248. 
— See  alio  Bevenue,  Tariff, 
etc. 

Tallmadge,  of  New  York,  68, 
84 

Tariff,  and  the  public  lands, 
26  seq.,  89,  45,  49,  50,  59 
seq.,  59  seq.,  66  seq.,  78  seq., 
85  seq.,  116  (note  8),  121, 
247. — See  alto  Compromise 
Tariff,  Distribution,  Beve- 
nue, etc. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  185,  189 

Tennessee,  49,  98,  94,  288 

Texan  question,  90 

Thomasson,  of  Kentucky, 
homestead  amendment  of, 
116,  117 

Thompson,  Jacob,  42  (note 
16) 

Toombs,  Bobert,  speech  on 
homestead,  164,  196;  liberal 


SM 


Imdta 


attitade  of,  en  hoiaestead, 
208,  208 

Treat,  P.  J.,  on  military  boas- 
ties,  M8,  119 

Tmmbull,  Lyman,  280 

Turner,  F.  J.,  Biae  of  New 
Weit,  19  (note  1) ;  on  sec- 
tionalism, 188,  184;  on  influ- 
ence of  frontier,  249 

Twenty  per  ceat.  proviso 
(1841),  58  seq.  (maps),  66 
seq.,  78,  74,  77  seq.,  B4, 
98 

Tyler,  John,  reasons  for  nami- 
>  nation  (1840),  48,  49;  land 
policy,  49;  becomes  Presi- 
dent, 51;  Whig  distrust  of, 
51,  52;  rivalry  of,  with 
Clay,  52;  message  on  distri- 
bution (1841),  58;  Whig 
and  Democratic  criticism 
of,  53-55;  reconuDcnds  sus- 
pension of  distribution  act, 
74,  75;  vetoes  "little  Tar- 
iff," 79  seq.;  vetoes  "Great 
Tariff,"  82;  policy  of,  an- 
alyzed, 80,  84  seq.;  eorre- 
spondence  of,  S52,  £58. — 
See  alto  Harrison,  Sovthern 
Whigs,  etc. 

Van  Buren,  campaign,  of  1840, 
88,  40;  land  policy  (1848), 
187  seq.;  correspondence  of, 
252,  258 

Virginia,  49,  69>  98 


"Vote  Yourself  A  Eanoa,"  199, 
110,  111  (note  48) 

Wade,  Benjamin  F.,  174  (note 
85);  speech  «n  Cuba  bill, 
195;  tries  to  £z  day  for 
vote  on  hnwstcad  bill,  208; 
.moves  to  nbstitaite  Hoase 
ihamestcad  bill  for  Semte 
bill,  208  (map),  £e9>  £10 

Wait,  W.  S.,  185,  186 

WAlker,  Isaac  P.,  Ii46 

W«Ucer,  of  Wisconsin,  1*41 
(aate  41) 

WAlker,  Robert  J.,  resolntions 
on  psUie  landf,  56;  insists 

•  «n  bankrupt  bill,  68;  ladvo- 

•  eatesjgnaduation,  128 
Walsh,  Mike,  105 
Washington,  '£11 
Wmthm^Um  ComttUmUon,  217 
Washington     •  Gorrespondence 

of  newspapers,  insportaace 
of,  252 

Wuhingtm  Giohe,  45,  46, 
47 

W^shmgtotn  C7mm,.179,  180 

Webster,  Daniel,  40,  ^  (aote 
51)  ;  land  policy  of ,  1£5;  in- 
tMduces  .hemestead  res(dn- 
tion,  142  (note  42) ;  oerre- 
fpoadence  of,  £4£,.a58 

Wellington,  B.  G„  PoUtUml 
and  Sectional  Infittenee  ■  of 
the  Public  Landt,  27  (note 
25),  55,  78  (note  1) 


Imbm 


t9B 


West>    the    lelf-oonsciooaMis 
of,    19,    20;    dissatisfaction 
with  land  system,  20  seq., 
82,  88,  248;  Claim  Associa- 
tions,   21    scq^    25;    unsold 
and  nntazed  land  in,  82,  88 
(note  80) ;  sentiment  on  ces- 
sion, 86,  87;  opposition  to 
Whigs  in  1840,  48;  conces- 
sions to,  in  act  of  1841,  71, 
72;    demands    more    liberal 
laws,  72;  sentiment  on  dis- 
tribnUon,   84   seq.;   attitude 
toward  military  boonties  and 
grants  to  railways,  97,  98, 
118,    128   seq.;   opinion   on 
graduation,  128  seq.;  grow- 
ing friendship  of,  for  East, 
151;  favors  homestead,  165 
seq.,  209,  210;  alliance  of, 
with  Free  Soil  and  labor  ele- 
ment, 174;  opposes  indigent 
insane  biU,   177,   178;  evi- 
dence    of     friendliness     to 
South,   86,   191;   opposition 
to  provisions  denying  bene- 
fits of  homestead  to  aliens, 
201,  202;  danger  of  defec- 
tion of  Western  Democrats, 
208;    in    election    of    I860, 
229-281,  285  seq. 

Westcott,    J.    D.,    155    (note 
15) 

Whig  papers,  89,  58,  75,  81, 
90,  147 

Whigs,  the,  attitude  of,  toward 


disttibntioB,  80;  erasiTe  tac- 
tics in  campaign  of  1840,  88 
neq.;  oppan  Beaton's  bill 
(1840-41),  45,  46;  factions 
of,  4ft  seq.;  Wertem.  Whigs 
favor  pre-enptioD^  41>  56- 
58;  Westem.\.^i'-«;aiid  dis- 
tribution, 56,  8^.  86;  South- 
em  Whigs  favor  20  per  cent 
proviso,  58  seq.;  Clay  Whigs 
oppose  suspension  of  distri- 
bution act,  75-77,  84  seq.; 
"Conscience"  Whigs,  186; 
repudiate  distribution  in 
1852,  147;  oppose  Hunter's 
substitute,  188;  hostility  of, 
to  Germans,  224,  225. — See 
alto  Clay,  Southern  Whigs, 
etc. 

WigfaU,  of  Texas,  199,  200, 
201 

Wilkinson,  of  Minnesota,  de- 
mands liberal  homestead 
law,  201,  202,  206,  207 

WUmington  (N.  C.)  DaUy 
Journal,  154 

Wilmot  Proviso,  148,  170, 
171 

Wilson,  Henry,  209  (note 
67) 

Windom,  of  Minnesota,  211 

Windt,  John,  105 

Wisconsin,  100,  150 

Wise,  H.  A.,  denounces  distri- 
bution, 41 ;  joins  Whig  coali- 
tion, 49;  "insurgency,"  50; 


296 


Indem 


comment  on  Tyler,  7S  (note  Working  Men's  partj,  26,  104, 

IS)  100 
Woodbury's     amendment,     60 

(note  60)  Young  America,  188 

Working  Man't  Advocate,  The,  Young,  of   Illinois,  65    (note 

105,    107,    111    (note    49),  74) 

184,  188,  S52 


104, 


note 


